Tag Archives: DNased RNA

Sample Submission – Geoduck Gonad for RNA-seq

Prepared two pools of geoduck RNA for RNA-seq (Illumina HiSeq2500, 100bp, PE) with GENEWIZ, Inc.

I pooled a set of female and a set of male RNAs that had been selected by Steven based on the Bioanalyzer results from Friday.

The female RNA pool used 210ng of each sample, with the exception being sample #08. This sample used 630ng. The reason for this was due to the fact that there weren’t any other female samples to use from this developmental time point. The two other developmental time points each had three samples contributing to the pool. So, three times the quantity of the other individual samples was used to help equalize the time point contribution to the pooled sample. Additionally, 630ng used the entirety of sample #08.

The male RNA pool used 315ng of each sample. This number differs from the 210ng used for the female RNAs so that the two pools would end up with the same total quantity of RNA. However, now that I’ve typed this, this doesn’t matter since the libraries will be equalized before being run on the Illumina HiSeq2500. Oh well. As long as each sample in each pool contributed to the total amount of RNA, then it’s all good.

The two pools were shipped O/N on dry ice.

  • Geo_pool_M
  • Geo_pool_F

Calculations (Google Sheet): 20150601_Geoduck_GENEWIZ_calcs

Share

Bioanalyzer – Geoduck Gonad RNA Quality Assessment

Before proceeding with transcriptomics for this project, we need to assess the integrity of the RNA via Bioanalyzer.

RNA that was previously isolated on 20150508, 20150505, 20150427, and 20150424 (those notebook entries have been updated to report this consolidation and have a link to this notebook entry) were consolidated into single samples (if there had been multiple isolations of the same sample) and spec’d on the Roberts Lab NanoDrop1000:

Google Sheet: 20150528_geoduck_histo_RNA_ODs

NOTE: Screwed up consolidation of Geoduck Block 03 sample (added one of the 04 dupes to the tube, so discarded 03).

RNA was stored in Shellfish RNA Box #5.

RNA was submitted to to Jesse Tsai at University of Washington Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Science Functional Genomics Laboratory for running on the Agilent Bioanalyzer 2100, using either the RNA Pico or RNA Nano chips, depending on RNA concentration (Pico for lower concentrations and Nano for higher concentrations – left decision up to Jesse).

 

Results:

Bioanalzyer 2100 Pico Data File (XAD): SamWhite_Eukaryote Total RNA Pico_2015-05-28_12-50-00.xad
Bioanalzyer 2100 Nano Data File (XAD): SamWhite_Eukaryote Total RNA Nano_2015-05-28_13-22-53.xad

 

Pico Gel Representation

 

Pico Electropherogram

 

Nano Gel Representation

 

Nano Electropherogram

 

Jesse alerted me to the fact that they did not have any ladder to use on the Nano chip, as someone had used the remainder, but failed to order more. I OK’d him to go ahead with the Nano chip despite lacking ladder, as we primarily needed to assess RNA integrity.

 

Bad Samples:

  • Geo 04 – No RNA detected
  • Geo 65, 67, 68 – These three samples show complete degradation of the RNA (i.e. no ribosomal band present, significant smearing on the gel representation).

All other samples look solid. Will discuss with Steven and Brent on how they want to proceed.

Full list of samples for this project (including the Block 03 sample not included in this analysis; see above). Grace’s notebook will have details on what the numbering indicates (e.g. developmental stage).

  • block 02
  • block 03 (no RNA)
  • block 04 (no RNA)
  • block 07
  • block 08
  • block 09
  • block 34
  • block 35
  • block 38
  • block 41
  • block 42
  • block 46
  • block 51
  • block 65 (degraded RNA)
  • block 67 (degraded RNA)
  • block 68 (degraded RNA)
  • block 69
  • block 70
Share

Reverse Transcription – Subset of Jake’s O.lurida DNased RNA

Currently don’t have sufficient reagents to perform reverse transcription on the entire set of DNased RNA (control and 1hr.heat-shocked O.lurida ctenidia samples). To enable Jake to start testing out some of his primers while we wait for reagents to come in, Steven suggested I generate some cDNA for him to use.

Used the following DNased RNA:

  • HC1
  • NC1
  • SC1
  • HT1 1
  • NT1 1
  • ST1 1

Reverse Transcription Calcs: 20150522_Jake_Oly_cDNA_Calcs

Briefly:

  • Reactions run in 0.5mL snap cap tubes
  • 250ng of DNased RNA used in each reaction
  • Combined DNased RNA with oligo dT primers and water; incubated 70C 5mins; immediately placed on ice
  • Added 6.75μL of buffer/dNTP/enzyme master mix to each sample; incubated 42C for 1hr; 95C for 3mins

Samples will be given to Jake and stored @ -20C.

Share

qPCR – Re-run Jake’s O.lurida DNased RNA Samples NC1, SC1, SC2, SC4 from 20150514

The following DNased RNA samples showed inconsistencies between qPCR reps (one rep showed amplification, the other rep did not) on 20150514:

  • NC1
  • SC1
  • SC2
  • SC4

Reran these four samples to obtain a definitive answer as to whether or not they have residual gDNA in them prior to using them to make cDNA.

Used Oly_Actin primers (SR IDs: 1504, 1505)

Used 1μL from all templates.

All samples were run in duplicate.

Positive control was HL1 O.lurida DNA isolated by Jake on 20150323.

Cycling params:

  • 95C – 2.5mins
  • 40 cycles of:
    • 95C – 10s
    • 60C – 20s
  • Melt curve

Master mix calcs: 20150521_qPCR_Oly_DNased_RNA

Plate layout: 20150521_qPCR_plate_Jake_Oly_DNased_RNA

Results:

qPCR Data File (Opticon): Sam_20150521_145749.tad
qPCR Report (Google Sheet): 20150521_qPCR_Report_Jake_Oly_DNased_RNA

 

No amplification in any of the RNA samples, nor the NTCs. Will make cDNA.

 

Amplification Plots

 

 

Melt Curves

Share

qPCR – Jake’s O.lurida ctenidia DNased RNA (1hr Heat Shock Samples)

Ran qPCR on DNased RNA from earlier today to assess whether there was any residual gDNA after the DNase treatment with Oly_Actin_F/R primers (SR IDs: 1505, 1504).

Used 1μL from all templates.

All samples were run in duplicate.

Positive control was HL1 O.lurida DNA isolated by Jake on 20150323.

Cycling params:

  • 95C – 2.5mins
  • 40 cycles of:
    • 95C – 10s
    • 60C – 20s
  • Melt curve

Master mix calcs are here (used same calcs from the other day): 20150512_qPCR_Oly_RNA

Plate layout: 20150514_qPCR_plate_Jake_Oly_1hr_HS_DNased_RNA

Results:

qPCR Data File (Opticon): Sam_20150514_170332.tad

qPCR Report (Google Spreadsheeet): 20150514_qPCR_Report_Jake_Oly_DNased_1hr_HS_RNA

 

Positive control samples are the only samples that produced amplification (cycle ~20). Will proceed to making cDNA.

 

Amplification Plots

 

Melt Curves

Share

qPCR – Jake’s O.lurida ctenidia DNased RNA (Control Samples)

Ran qPCR on DNased RNA from earlier today to assess whether there was any residual gDNA after the DNase treatment with Oly_Actin_F/R primers (SR IDs: 1505, 1504).

Used 1μL from all templates.

All samples were run in duplicate.

Positive control was HL1 O.lurida DNA isolated by Jake on 20150323.

Cycling params:

  • 95C – 2.5mins
  • 40 cycles of:
    • 95C – 10s
    • 60C – 20s
  • Melt curve

Master mix calcs are here: 20150514_qPCR_Oly_DNased_RNA

qPCR Plate Layout: 20150514_qPCR_plate_Jake_Oly_Control_RNA

Results:

qPCR Data File (Opticon): Sam_20150514_153529.tad

qPCR Report (Google Spreadsheet): 20150514_qPCR_Report_Jake_Oly_DNased_Control_RNA

Positive control comes up around cycle ~21.

No amplification in the no template controls.

Four wells of the DNased RNA samples exhibit amplification (B5, C10, C12, D3), however each respective replicate does not. Will re-test these four samples (NC1, SC1, SC2, SC4).

 

Amplification Plots

 

Melt Curves

 

Share

DNase Treatment – Jake’s O.lurida Ctenidia RNA (1hr Heat Shock) from 20150506

Since the O.lurida RNA I isolated on 20150506 showed residual gDNA via qPCR, I treated 1.5μg of RNA from each sample using the Turbo DNA-free Kit (Ambion/Life Technologies), following the “rigorous” protocol.

Briefly:

  • 50μL reactions were carried out in 0.5mL tubes
  • added 1μL of DNase to each tube
  • incubated 30mins @ 37C
  • added additional 1μL of DNased
  • incubated 30mins @ 37C
  • added 0.2 vols (10.2μL) of DNase Inactivation Reagent
  • incubated and mixed for 2mins @ RT
  • transferred 50μL of supe to sterile 1.5mL snap cap tubes
  • spec’d on Roberts Lab NanoDrop1000

Samples were stored @ -80C in Shellfish RNA Box #5 and Box #6.

DNase reaction calcs: 20150514_Jake_Oly_1hr_HS_DNase_calcs

 

 

Results:

Google Spreadsheet: 20150514_DNased_RNA_Jake_Oly_1hr_HS_ODs

 

 

 

 

All samples look pretty good except for HT1 8 (RNA concentration is ridiculously high!) and NT1 8 (RNA concentration is way below expected). Will check for residual gDNA via qPCR.

Share

DNase Treatment – Jake’s O.lurida Ctenidia RNA (Controls) from 20150507

Since the O.lurida RNA I isolated on 20150507 showed residual gDNA via qPCR, I treated 5μg of RNA from each sample using the Turbo DNA-free Kit (Ambion/Life Technologies), following the “rigorous” protocol.

Briefly:

  • 50μL reactions were carried out in 0.5mL tubes
  • added 1μL of DNase to each tube
  • incubated 30mins @ 37C
  • added additional 1μL of DNased
  • incubated 30mins @ 37C
  • added 0.2 vols (10.2μL) of DNase Inactivation Reagent
  • incubated and mixed for 2mins @ RT
  • transferred 50μL of supe to sterile 1.5mL snap cap tubes
  • spec’d on Roberts Lab NanoDrop1000

Samples were stored @ -80C in Shellfish RNA Box #5 and Box #6.

DNase reaction calcs: 20150514_Jake_Oly_control_DNase_calcs

 

 

Results:

 

Google Spreadsheet: 20150514_DNased_RNA_Jake_Oly_controls_ODs

 

 

 

 

Overall, samples look fine. Will check for residual gDNA via qPCR.

Share

RNA Isolation – Geoduck Gonad in Paraffin Histology Blocks

UPDATE 20150528: The RNA isolated in this notebook entry may have been consolidated on 20150528.

The RNA isolation I performed earlier this week proved to be better for some of the samples (scraping tissue directly from the blocks), but still exhibited low yields from some samples. I will perform a final RNA isolation attempt (the kit only has six columns left) from the following samples:

  • 02
  • 03
  • 04
  • 07
  • 08
  • 09

Instead of full sections from each histology cassette, I gouged samples directly from the tissue in each of the blocks to maximize the amount of tissue input.

IMPORTANT:

Samples were then processed with the PAXgene Tissue RNA Kit in a single group.

Isolated RNA according to the PAXgene Tissue RNA Kit protocol with the following alterations:

  • “Max speed” spins were performed at 19,000g.
  • Tissue disruption was performed with the Disruptor Genie @ 45C for 15mins.
  • Shaking incubation step was performed with Disruptor Genie
  • Samples were eluted with 40μL of Buffer TR4, incubated @ 65C for 5mins, immediately placed on ice and quantified on the Roberts Lab NanoDrop1000.

 

All samples were stored @ -80C in Shellfish RNA Box #5.

Results:

 

Two samples (02 and 07) produced great yields and perfect RNA (260/280 and 260/230 of ~2.0). The remainder of the samples showed little improvement compared to what I’ve been obtaining from the previous three attempts. Will discuss with Steven and Brent about how to proceed with this project.

Share

RNA Isolation – Geoduck Gonad in Paraffin Histology Blocks

UPDATE 20150528: The RNA isolated in this notebook entry may have been consolidated on 20150528.

Isolated RNA from geoduck gonad previously preserved with the PAXgene Tissue Fixative and Stabilizer and then embedded in paraffin blocks. See Grace’s notebook for full details on samples and preservation.

RNA was isolated from the following samples using the PAXgene Tissue RNA Kit (Qiagen) from the following geoduck sample blocks:

  • 02
  • 03
  • 04
  • 07
  • 08
  • 09
  • 35
  • 38
  • 41
  • 46
  • 51
  • 65
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70

IMPORTANT:

Five 5μm sections were taken from each block. A new blade was used for each block.

Samples were then processed with the PAXgene Tissue RNA Kit in two groups of eight.

Isolated RNA according to the PAXgene Tissue RNA Kit protocol with the following alterations:

  • “Max speed” spins were performed at 19,000g.
  • Tissue disruption was performed with the Disruptor Genie @ 45C for 15mins.
  • Shaking incubation step was performed with Disruptor Genie
  • Samples were eluted with 40μL of Buffer TR4, incubated @ 65C for 5mins, immediately placed on ice and quantified on the Roberts Lab NanoDrop1000.

Results:

 

 

Well, these results are certainly not good.

The first set of eight samples I processed yielded no RNA (except #38, which is only marginally better than nothing). All the samples (excluding #38) have been discarded.

The second set of eight samples I processed range from amazing to poor (#68 was barely worth keeping).

I’ll review the protocol, but at the moment I’m at a loss to explain why the first set of eight samples came up empty. Will perform another on these blocks on Monday. Grrrrr.

Samples were stored at -80C in Shellfish RNA Box #5.

Share