GSA Journals
Browse
DOCUMENT
Barrett et al G3 2021 Figure S1.pdf (3.75 MB)
DOCUMENT
Barrett et al G3 2021 Figure S2.pdf (2.32 MB)
DOCUMENT
Barrett et al G3 2021 Figure S3.pdf (1.49 MB)
DOCUMENT
Barrett et al G3 2021 Table S1.pdf (46.71 kB)
DOCUMENT
Barrett et al G3 2021 Table S2.pdf (34.32 kB)
DOCUMENT
Barrett et al G3 2021 Table S3.pdf (34.96 kB)
1/0
6 files

Supplementary materials for Barrett et al., 2021

dataset
posted on 2021-04-09, 18:32 authored by Alec Barrett, Rebecca McWhirter, Seth R. Taylor, Alexis Weinreb, David M. Miller III, Marc Hammarlund
Supplementary material describing comparisons between two RNA-sequencing library preparation techniques for low input samples in C. elegans. Two techniques were compared head-to-head on the same samples, a PolyA selection based approach (SMARTseq V4, Takara), and a ribodepletion based approach (SoLo Ovation, Tecan Genomics) with a custom ribodepletion probe set designed for C. elegans.

Here we describe: correlation analyses within and between each kit; gene level variance measures compared between the two techniques for all protein coding genes; and gene level variance comparisons between both techniques for the 2000 shortest and longest protein coding genes.

We also provide supplementary tables describing: metrics for sample inputs and mapping rates for all samples; mean and median values of variance measures in 5 ranked groups for both techniques, and comparisons between sample preparation in this study and a previous study.

History

Article title

A head-to-head comparison of ribodepletion and polyA selection approaches for C. elegans low input RNA-sequencing libraries

Usage metrics

    G3: Genes|Genomes|Genetics

    Categories

    Licence

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC