U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Display Settings:

Items per page

PMC Full-Text Search Results

Items: 6

1.
Figure 3

Figure 3. 5′ to 3′ sequence coverage. From: Comprehensive comparative analysis of RNA sequencing methods for degraded or low input samples.

(a) Normalized coverage by position. For each library, shown is the average relative coverage (y axis) at each relative position along the transcripts’ length. (b,c) 5′ and 3′ end coverage. For each library, shown is the percentage of annotated 5′ (b) and 3′ (c) ends covered by reads.

Xian Adiconis, et al. Nat Methods. ;10(7):623-629.
2.
Figure 4

Figure 4. Expression metrics. From: Comprehensive comparative analysis of RNA sequencing methods for degraded or low input samples.

(a) Pearson correlation coefficient between each library and the control Total library. (b–e) Illustrative scatter plots (b,c) and Q-Q plots (d,e) between a low quality library (RNase H, b,d, y axis) or a low quantity library (SMART, c,e, y axis) and the control Total library (x axis). For Q-Q plots, if the two samples originated from the same distribution, then the points will lie on a straight line. TPM = Transcripts Per Million.

Xian Adiconis, et al. Nat Methods. ;10(7):623-629.
3.
Figure 1

Figure 1. Methods for total RNA-Seq. From: Comprehensive comparative analysis of RNA sequencing methods for degraded or low input samples.

Shown are the salient details for five protocols for total RNA-Seq. DSN-lite (Duplex-specific nuclease, low C0t normalization), RNase H, and Ribo-Zero were tested for low quality samples; SMART was tested for low quantity samples. NuGEN, which generates double-stranded cDNA amplified using Ribo-SPIA (Single Primer Isothermal Amplification), was tested for both types of samples: (NuGEN 100f for low quality; NuGEN 1i for low quantity, and NuGEN 1f for low quantity and low quality). In each case, RNA and matching cDNA are in black, adaptors and primers in color, and rRNA is in grey.

Xian Adiconis, et al. Nat Methods. ;10(7):623-629.
4.
Figure 5

Figure 5. Length and GC biases in expression metrics. From: Comprehensive comparative analysis of RNA sequencing methods for degraded or low input samples.

Shown are the Pearson correlation coefficient between each library (columns) and the control Total library for either all transcripts (top row) or for transcripts with (a) different lengths; or (b) different GC content. The number of transcripts expressed in the control Total library in bins with length < 1,000, 1,000–5,000, and > 5,000 was 3,716, 38,088, and 7,050, respectively. The number of transcripts expressed in the control Total library in bins with GC content < 37%, 37–62%, and > 62% was 2,358, 42,660, and 3,836, respectively.

Xian Adiconis, et al. Nat Methods. ;10(7):623-629.
5.
Figure 6

Figure 6. Performance for actual degraded samples. From: Comprehensive comparative analysis of RNA sequencing methods for degraded or low input samples.

Shown are key metrics for RNase-H (orange), Ribo-Zero (pink) and total (black) libraries from pancreas and FFPE kidney RNA. (a) Percent of rRNA mapping reads; (b) Proportion of reads mapping to exons (solid), introns (hatched), and intergenic (white) regions; (c) mean coefficient of variation (y axis) for the top 1,000 expressed transcripts in each library (x axis); (d) Pearson correlation coefficient between each library and a control Total library.

Xian Adiconis, et al. Nat Methods. ;10(7):623-629.
6.
Figure 2

Figure 2. Sequence alignment and uniformity of coverage metrics. From: Comprehensive comparative analysis of RNA sequencing methods for degraded or low input samples.

Shown is the performance of each library (x axis, color coded as in legend) for each of (a) Percent of rRNA mapping reads; (b) Percent of duplicated reads; (c) Proportion of reads mapping to exons (solid), introns (hatched), and intergenic (white) regions; (d) Evenness of coverage. Shown is the mean coefficient of variation (y axis) for the top 1,000 expressed transcripts in each library (x axis); and (e) Proportion of transcript covered at each expression level. Shown are the Lowess fits of the percentage of the transcript length covered (y axis) for transcripts at each expression level (x axis). Transcript coverage was aggregated for all isoforms of each gene.

Xian Adiconis, et al. Nat Methods. ;10(7):623-629.

Display Settings:

Items per page

Supplemental Content

Recent activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...
Support Center