Modified Illumina DNA Prep (M) Tagmentation Library Preparation for cDNA amplicons from wastewater v1

Author(s):  
Padmini Ramachandran ◽  
Tamara Walsky ◽  
Amanda Windsor ◽  
maria.hoffmann not provided ◽  
Chris Grim

This procedure outlines the protocol for sequencing of VarSkip Short SARS-CoV-2 cDNA amplicons using the Illumina DNA Prep library preparation kit for sequencing on an Illumina MiSeq sequencer.

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Nguyen ◽  
Rebecca Hickman ◽  
Tracy Lee ◽  
Natalie Prystajecky ◽  
John Tyson

This procedure provides instructions on how to prepare DNA libraries for whole genome sequencing on an Illumina MiSeq or NextSeq using Illumina’s DNA Prep Library Preparation Kit scaled to half reaction volumes with modifications to the post-PCR procedures; tagmentation stop buffer and associated washes are removed and libraries are pooled post PCR then a single size selection is performed. This protocol is used to sequence SARS-CoV-2 using the cDNA/PCR protocol: https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.b3viqn4e


protocols.io ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cecile Chardon ◽  
Valentin Vasselon ◽  
Marine Vautier ◽  
Sonia Lacroix ◽  
Agn s ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Champika Fernando ◽  
Janet E. Hill

Abstract This protocol can be applied to determine the composition of a microbial community. The cpn60 gene (also known as groEL, hsp60) is present in almost all bacteria and a 552-558 bp region of the gene has been established as a barcode for species level identification of bacteria. The primer cocktail used in this protocol amplifies cpn60 barcode sequences from bacteria with a wide range of G+C content. Some species of Mycoplasma lack the cpn60 gene and therefore this method is not recommended to detect Mycoplasma. DNA sequences generated from this method could be compared to cpnDB, a public database of cpn60 sequences, for identification. Library preparation involves cpn60 amplicon generation, PCR clean-up, index PCR, index PCR clean-up, library quantification, normalization, pooling, library denaturation and loading. Time taken to complete depends on the number of samples included. If using 96 samples, the procedure takes 8 hours but there are several stages where the samples could be stored and continued the next day. Specific instructions are provided for the Illumina MiSeq platform, but the protocol could easily be adapted for other sequencing platforms.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Fuchs ◽  
Clara Radulescu ◽  
Miao Tang ◽  
Arun Mahesh ◽  
Deborah Lavin ◽  
...  

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of whole genome sequencing (WGS) of SARS-CoV-2 to inform public health policy. By enabling definition of lineages it facilitates tracking of the global spread of the virus. The evolution of new variants can be monitored and knowledge of specific mutations provides insights into the mechanisms through which the virus increases transmissibility or evades immunity. To date almost one million SARS-CoV-2 genomes have been sequenced by members of the COVID-19 Genomics UK (COG-UK) Consortium. To achieve similar feats in a more cost-effective and sustainable manner in future, improved high throughput virus sequencing protocols are required. We have therefore developed a miniaturized library preparation protocol with drastically reduced consumable use and costs. Methods: SARS-CoV-2 RNA was amplified using the ARTIC nCov-2019 multiplex RT-PCR protocol and purified using a conventional liquid handling system. Acoustic liquid transfer (Echo 525) was employed to reduce reaction volumes and the number of tips required for a Nextera XT library preparation. Sequencing was performed on an Illumina MiSeq. Results: We present the 'Mini-XT' miniaturized tagmentation-based library preparation protocol available on protocols.io (https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.bvntn5en). The final version of Mini-XT has been used to sequence 4,384 SARS-CoV-2 samples from N. Ireland with a COG-UK QC pass rate of 97.4%. Sequencing quality was comparable and lineage calling consistent for replicate samples processed with full volume Nextera DNA Flex (333 samples) or using nanopore technology (20 samples). SNP calling between Mini-XT and these technologies was consistent and sequences from replicate samples paired together in maximum likelihood phylogenetic trees. Conclusion: The Mini-XT protocol maintains sequence quality while reducing library preparation reagent volumes 8-fold and halving overall tip usage from sample to sequence to provide concomitant cost savings relative to standard protocols. This will enable more efficient high-throughput sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 isolates and future pathogen WGS.


Author(s):  
Elizabeth M. Batty ◽  
Theerarat Kochakarn ◽  
Arporn Wangwiwatsin ◽  
Khajohn Joonlasak ◽  
Angkana T. Huang ◽  
...  

AbstractGenomic surveillance has a key role in tracking the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, but information on how different sequencing library preparation approaches affect the data produced are lacking. We compared three library preparation methods using both tagmentation (Nextera XT and Nextera Flex) and ligation-based (KAPA HyperPrep) approaches on both positive and negative samples to provide insights into any methodological differences between the methods, and validate their use in SARS-CoV-2 amplicon sequencing. We show that all three library preparation methods allow us to recover near-complete SARS-CoV-2 genomes with identical SNP calls. The Nextera Flex and KAPA library preparation methods gave better coverage than libraries prepared with Nextera XT, which required more reads to call the same number of genomic positions. The KAPA ligation-based approach shows the lowest levels of human contamination, but contaminating reads had no effect on the downstream analysis. We found some examples of library preparation-specific differences in minority variant calling. Overall our data shows that the choice of Illumina library preparation method has minimal effects on consensus base calling and downstream phylogenetic analysis, and suggests that all methods would be suitable for use if specific reagents are difficult to obtain.


mSystems ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elin Videvall ◽  
Maria Strandh ◽  
Anel Engelbrecht ◽  
Schalk Cloete ◽  
Charlie K. Cornwallis

ABSTRACT The microbial communities of animals can have large impacts on their hosts, and the number of studies using high-throughput sequencing to measure gut microbiomes is rapidly increasing. However, the library preparation procedure in microbiome research is both costly and time-consuming, especially for large numbers of samples. We investigated a cheaper and faster direct PCR method designed to bypass the DNA isolation steps during 16S rRNA library preparation and compared it with a standard DNA extraction method. We used both techniques on five different gut sample types collected from 20 juvenile ostriches and sequenced samples with Illumina MiSeq. The methods were highly comparable and highly repeatable in three sample types with high microbial biomass (cecum, colon, and feces), but larger differences and low repeatability were found in the microbiomes obtained from the ileum and cloaca. These results will help microbiome researchers assess library preparation procedures and plan their studies accordingly. The gut microbiome of animals is emerging as an important factor influencing ecological and evolutionary processes. A major bottleneck in obtaining microbiome data from large numbers of samples is the time-consuming laboratory procedures required, specifically the isolation of DNA and generation of amplicon libraries. Recently, direct PCR kits have been developed that circumvent conventional DNA extraction steps, thereby streamlining the laboratory process by reducing preparation time and costs. However, the reliability and efficacy of direct PCR for measuring host microbiomes have not yet been investigated other than in humans with 454 sequencing. Here, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the microbial communities obtained with direct PCR and the widely used Mo Bio PowerSoil DNA extraction kit in five distinct gut sample types (ileum, cecum, colon, feces, and cloaca) from 20 juvenile ostriches, using 16S rRNA Illumina MiSeq sequencing. We found that direct PCR was highly comparable over a range of measures to the DNA extraction method in cecal, colon, and fecal samples. However, the two methods significantly differed in samples with comparably low bacterial biomass: cloacal and especially ileal samples. We also sequenced 100 replicate sample pairs to evaluate repeatability during both extraction and PCR stages and found that both methods were highly consistent for cecal, colon, and fecal samples (r s > 0.7) but had low repeatability for cloacal (r s = 0.39) and ileal (r s = −0.24) samples. This study indicates that direct PCR provides a fast, cheap, and reliable alternative to conventional DNA extraction methods for retrieving 16S rRNA data, which can aid future gut microbiome studies. IMPORTANCE The microbial communities of animals can have large impacts on their hosts, and the number of studies using high-throughput sequencing to measure gut microbiomes is rapidly increasing. However, the library preparation procedure in microbiome research is both costly and time-consuming, especially for large numbers of samples. We investigated a cheaper and faster direct PCR method designed to bypass the DNA isolation steps during 16S rRNA library preparation and compared it with a standard DNA extraction method. We used both techniques on five different gut sample types collected from 20 juvenile ostriches and sequenced samples with Illumina MiSeq. The methods were highly comparable and highly repeatable in three sample types with high microbial biomass (cecum, colon, and feces), but larger differences and low repeatability were found in the microbiomes obtained from the ileum and cloaca. These results will help microbiome researchers assess library preparation procedures and plan their studies accordingly.


2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Nguyen ◽  
Rebecca Hickman ◽  
Tracy Lee ◽  
Natalie Prystajecky ◽  
John Tyson

This procedure provides instructions on how to prepare DNA libraries for whole genome sequencing on an Illumina MiSeq or NextSeq using Illumina’s DNA Prep Library Preparation Kit scaled to half reaction volumes with modifications to the post-PCR procedures; tagmentation stop buffer and associated washes are removed and libraries are pooled post PCR then a single size selection is performed.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel L. Marine ◽  
Laura C. Magaña ◽  
Christina J. Castro ◽  
Kun Zhao ◽  
Anna M. Montmayeur ◽  
...  

ABSTRACTNext-generation sequencing is a powerful tool for virological surveillance. While Illumina® and Ion Torrent® sequencing platforms are used extensively for generating viral RNA genome sequences, there is limited data comparing different platforms. We evaluated the Illumina MiSeq, Ion Torrent PGM and Ion Torrent S5 platforms using a panel of sixteen specimens containing picornaviruses and human caliciviruses (noroviruses and sapoviruses). The specimens were processed, using combinations of three library preparation and five sequencing kits, to assess the quality and completeness of assembled viral genomes, and an estimation of cost per sample to generate the data was calculated. The choice of library preparation kit and sequencing platform was found to impact the breadth of genome coverage and accuracy of consensus viral genomes. The Ion Torrent S5 outperformed the older Ion Torrent PGM platform in data quality and cost, and generated the highest proportion of reads for enterovirus D68 samples. However, indels at homopolymer regions impacted the accuracy of consensus genome sequences. For lower throughput sequencing runs (i.e., Ion Torrent 510 or Illumina MiSeq Nano V2), the cost per sample was lower on the MiSeq platform, whereas with higher throughput runs (Ion Torrent 530 or Illumina MiSeq V2) the cost per sample was comparable. These findings suggest that the Ion Torrent S5 and Illumina MiSeq platforms are both viable options for genomic sequencing of RNA viruses, each with specific advantages and tradeoffs.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document