AbstractHigh-throughput sequencing has emerged as the favoured method to study microRNA (miRNA) expression, but biases introduced during library preparation have been reported. To assist researchers choose the most appropriate library preparation kit, we recently compared the performance of six commercially-available kits on synthetic miRNAs and human RNA, where library preparation was performed by the vendors. We hereby supplement this study with data from two further commonly used kits (NEBNext, NEXTflex) whose manufacturers initially declined to participate. As before, performance was assessed with respect to sensitivity, reliability, titration response and differential expression. Despite NEXTflex employing partially-randomised adapter sequences to minimise bias, we reaffirm that biases in miRNA abundance are kit-specific, complicating the comparison of miRNA datasets generated using different kits.
An extension to: Systematic assessment of commercially available low-input miRNA library preparation kits
