Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.
Info

The new Zymo Mock Community samples (cleaned via the max tip protocol) did not show up in the demultiplexed reads. They were either not added, or somehow the demux key is wrong for them.

There is a relationship between reads and qPCR quantification. We will take absorbance readings of these same samples. If there is a relationship between qPCR, absorbance, and reads of these same samples, we will use absorbance from all samples to normalize prior to pooling. If not, we will consider further qPCR. There is still a relationship to absorbance. We will proceed with 1 column of qPCR as a check on sequence-able state, and use absorbance to adjust for less read disparity. We will perform absorbance checks, compile the data, and then sort out the best program for normalization.

Alex Buerkle Linda van Diepen

...

I think we need to either do a larger experiment prior to sending out NovaSeq5. Or, we pool NovaSeq5 as normal, qPCR the first 72 samples singly from 10? plates and then use the sequencing data from it with the qPCR data to decide the pooling standard moving forward. I would advocate for option B.

We are going to add added absorbance into the mix as a cheaper and quicker tool for normalized pooling. We will get got absorbance readings for these same products and do the same comparison to readsdid the same comparison to reads.

Code Block
languager
#Read in the absorbance data
AbsLVD <- read_xlsx("/Volumes/Macintosh HD/Users/gregg/Downloads/5LVD5_16S_ITS.xlsx", sheet = "Summary", skip = 2)
AbsLVD <- AbsLVD[, c(3,11)]
AbsDG <- read_xlsx("/Volumes/Macintosh HD/Users/gregg/Downloads/5DG5_16S_ITS.xlsx", sheet = "Summary", skip = 2)
AbsDG <- AbsDG[, c(3,11)]
AbsMC <- read_xlsx("/Volumes/Macintosh HD/Users/gregg/Downloads/LRII_LRIII_MC.xlsx", sheet = "Summary", skip = 2)
AbsMC <- AbsMC[, c(3,11)]
AbsLRIII <- rbind(AbsLVD, AbsDG, AbsMC)
colnames(AbsLRIII) <- c("samplename", "NgPerUl")

LRIIIReads <- left_join(LRIIIReads, AbsLRIII, by = "samplename")

#First lets check the relationship to reads
ggplot(LRIIIReads, aes(NgPerUl, reads, color=plate, shape=plate))+
  geom_point(show.legend = TRUE)+
  geom_smooth(method='lm', formula= y~x)+
  stat_regline_equation(label.y = 200000, aes(label = ..eq.label..)) +
  stat_regline_equation(label.y = 150000, aes(label = ..rr.label..))+
  facet_wrap(~plate)
Image Added

There is still a relationship here. We will proceed with 1 column of qPCR as a check on sequence-able state, and use absorbance to adjust for less read disparity.

We will perform absorbance checks, compile the data, and then sort out the best program for normalization. Probably, we will normalize to around 10 ng/ul. 1 nM is the minimum library concentration for a NovaSeq run. From the data here, 1.44 nM ~ 4 ng/ul. We would like to operate under a larger margin of error.

Is there a relationship between reads and qPCR?

Code Block
languager
ggplot(LRIIIReads, aes(NgPerUl, mean, color=plate, shape=plate))+
  geom_point(show.legend = TRUE)+
  geom_smooth(method='lm', formula= y~x)+
  stat_regline_equation(label.y = 125, aes(label = ..eq.label..)) +
  stat_regline_equation(label.y = 100, aes(label = ..rr.label..))+
  facet_wrap(~plate)
Image Added

Excluding the Mock Community samples, there is a strong relationship between absorbance and qPCR. The odd MC results may be a result of the small Data Set, their larger than average contribution to the data set, and their very low relative complexity.

Files:

View file
nameLRIIIanalysis.pdf
View file
nameLRIIIanalysis.Rmd
View file
nameMC_MB_Comparison.csv
View file
nameLRIIIfiltermergestats.csv
View file
nameLRIII.txt
View file
name5LVD5_Col123.csv
View file
name5DG5_COL456.csv

...