The largest database of trusted experimental protocols

Base calling pipeline

Manufactured by Illumina

The Illumina base-calling pipeline is a software tool that converts raw sequencing data from Illumina sequencing instruments into accurate DNA sequences. It performs the critical task of interpreting the signal intensities generated during the sequencing process and translating them into the corresponding nucleotide bases (A, T, C, G). This core functionality enables the downstream analysis of sequencing data.

Automatically generated - may contain errors

13 protocols using base calling pipeline

1

Illumina TruSeq small RNA sequencing

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Six small RNA libraries (Q1, Q2, T1, T2, B1 and B2) were constructed and sequenced with Illumina TruSeq deep sequencing technology (Sample Preparation Guide, Par #15004197 Rev.A, Illumina, San Diego, CA). Briefly, small RNAs (18–30 nt) were size-selected by gel fraction and extracted by centrifugation. After ligation of 5′ and 3′ adaptors, small RNAs were reverse transcribed into cDNA, then amplified using the sequencing primers for 14 cycles and the fragments (~ 150 bps) were isolated from a 6% TBE PAGE-gel. After the cDNA was purified, it was used for cluster generation and sequenced using an Illumina HiSeq 2000 platform. Image files generated by the sequencer were processed to nucleotide sequences (raw FASTQ files) using a base-calling pipeline (Illumina). FASTQ files for all six libraries have been submitted to Sequence Read Archive (SRA) of NCBI under the accession number SRA347706 (Q1: SRR3184695, Q2: SRR3184696, T2: SRR3184697, T1: SRR3184698, B1: SRR3184699, and B2: SRR3184700).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
2

Litchi Transcriptome Analysis Pipeline

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Images generated by the sequencer were converted into nucleotide sequences (raw sequencing reads) using a base-calling pipeline (Illumina). Then, the raw reads were quality controlled by FASTQC (http://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/) and were cleaned by removing low quality reads, contamination reads and reads with adapters using SOAPnuke (http://www.seq500.com/uploadfile/SOAPnuke.zip). The resulting clean reads were quality controlled by FASTQC again and aligned to the litchi genome (http://litchidb.genomics.cn/) and matched litchi genes (http://litchidb.genomics.cn/, 65,076 sequences) by SOAP279 (link) with no more than a 3-base mismatch. After the number of reads mapped to each gene was counted, the RPKM (reads per kilobase per million reads) method was used for normalization and the lowly expressed genes (<5 RPKM) were filtered in each sample. To identify the DEGs, edgeR33 (link) was employed to calculate the log 2-fold change (log2FC), p-value and FDR (false discovery rate) for each gene in every comparison and a strict criterial was used (log2FC > 1 or log2FC < −1, p-value < 0.05 and FDR < 0.05).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
3

Comparative Genomics of ε-PL Yield

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
One hundred eighty mutant strains were obtained using multiple mutagenesis strategies. Of these strains, 30 that produced the lowest yield of ε-PL and 30 that produced the highest yield of ε-PL were chosen to be the low (L) and high (H) groups, respectively. For each strain, the gDNA was extracted with the UltraClean Microbial DNA Isolation Kit and checked by gel electrophoresis, and the DNA concentration was determined using a NanoDrop 2500. For each group, equal amounts of gDNA from each of the 30 strains were pooled, resulting in two DNA mixtures. Then, the DNA mixtures were fragmented using the Bioruptor standard module, and paired-end DNA sequencing libraries with an insert size of ~300 bp were constructed using the NextFlex DNA-seq Library Kit as described in the manufacturer's manuals. DNA sequencing was performed on an Illumina HiSeq 2000 sequencer according to standard protocols. The Illumina base-calling pipeline was used to process the raw fluorescent images and to call sequences. Raw reads were cleaned using in-house scripts, and low-quality reads from the paired-end sequencing were discarded.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
4

Reduced Representation Bisulfite Sequencing of Pig Intestinal DNA

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Genomic DNA from the middle intestinal tissues was extracted using DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) and was subjected to reduced representation bisulfite sequencing (RRBS), as previously described (24 (link)). Raw sequencing data were processed by the Illumina base-calling pipeline. Low-quality reads that contained more than 30% N's or >10% of the sequence with low-quality value (quality value <20) per read were omitted from the data analysis. Bisulfite sequence mapping program was used for sequence alignment to the Ensembl pig reference genome (Sscrofa10.2). Methylation level of individual cytosine was calculated as the ratio of sequenced depth of methylated cytosine to the total sequenced depth of the individual cytosine. One of 80 samples failed in RRBS and was excluded in DNA methylation analysis.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
5

RRBS Library Construction and Sequencing

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Briefly, genomic DNA was isolated from flash frozen muscular tissue. Then, the construction of RRBS libraries and paired-end sequencing using Illumina HisSeq analyzer was performed at Novogene technology co., LTD (Beijing, China). Raw sequencing data were processed by an Illumina base-calling pipeline. Genomic DNA was digested with MspI enzyme at 37 °C for 16 h. The DNA fragments after enzyme digestion were repaired at the end, and the sequencing adapters with all cytosine methylated were attached. The inserted DNA fragments with the length ranging from 40 to 220 bp were selected for glue cutting. Then, Bisulfite conversion was carried out. After that, the unmethylated C was changed to U (after PCR amplification to T), while the methylated C remained unchanged. Finally, PCR amplification was carried out to obtain the final DNA library. Clean reads were obtained from the raw data after removing reads containing adaptor sequences, unknown, or low-quality bases. The process of quality control was carried out using Trimmomatic software [41 (link)]. Quality control was adopted to access the high data quality by (1) removing low-quality reads using a sliding window method (SLIDINGWINDOW: 4:15); (2) removing reads including adaptor sequences (ILLUMINACLIP: adapter.fa: 2:30:7:1: true); (3) removing reads with tail quality lower than 3 or with unknown bases (TRAILING: 3).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
6

Illumina-based small RNA sequencing

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The Illumina base-calling pipeline was used for fluorescent image deconvolution, quality value calculation, and sequence conversion to obtain reads with a length of 50 nt. High-quality (clean) reads were obtained after trimming the 5′ and 3′ adaptors and eliminating contaminants and inadequate (<18 nt) and low-quality reads. The clean reads were then mapped to the mouse genome (mm9) using SOAP2 [34 (link)]. Perfectly matched reads were summarized and retained for further analyses. Read annotations were performed as described previously. Briefly, a hierarchical order that classified reads into specific RNA species was determined for annotation using the BLASTn (ftp://ftp.ncbi.nih.gov/blast/) program. The annotation order was miRNA > rRNA/snoRNA/tRNA/scRNA/snRNA > piRNA > endo-siRNA.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
7

Genome-wide DNA Methylation Analysis

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Raw sequencing data were processed by the Illumina base-calling pipeline. Low-quality reads that contained more than 30% ‘N’s or over 10% low-quality calls (quality value < 20) were removed. Adapter contamination was removed by cutadapt (version 1.9) [17 (link)]. The clean reads were aligned to the reference genome hg19 using BSMAP (version 2.73) [18 (link)]. Conversion ratio was calculated on lambda DNA and samples with a conversion ratio lower than 99% would be considered unqualified for further analysis and corresponding libraries would rebuilt and sequenced. Only uniquely aligned reads containing the Msp I enzyme digestion sites were used for further analysis. Only CpG sites with sequencing depths ≥5 were selected as candidate sites. After bisulfite treatment, cytosines were read as “T” if unmethylated or as “C” if methylated. Methylation level of the sample was defined as the ratio of number of “C”s and the sequencing depth of the site. Differential methylation analysis on these sites were performed with ANOVA (analysis of variance) and the acquired p-values were adjusted to Q-values with Benjamini-Hochberg method [19 ]. Differential methylation sites (DMSs) were defined as sites with a Q-value lower than 0.05.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
8

Microbial Transcriptome Profiling of Biofilms

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Total RNA was isolated from the biofilms using the mirVana miRNA isolation kit (Applied Biosystems). Microbial cells were lysed and RNA was extracted by Acid-Phenol: Chloroform and ethanol precipitation and eluted in nuclease-free water. Ribosomal RNA was depleted and mRNA enriched by modified capture hybridization approach. Enriched mRNA served as a template for the polyadenylation reaction and cDNA synthesis. Microbial libraries were clustered on the Illumina HiSeq platform, and 150 bp paired-end sequencing was performed. The Illumina base-calling pipeline was used to process the raw fluorescence images and call sequences. Raw reads with >10% unknown nucleotides or with >50% low quality nucleotides (quality value < 20) were discarded. Microbial transcripts were quality filtered using SolexaQA++, and aligned against the Human Oral Microbiome Database71 (link) using DIAMOND.72 (link) Aligned sequences were annotated to the KEGG database using Megan 6.73 (link) The metagenomic sequence classifier Kraken74 (link) was used along with our custom tool, kraken-biom, for taxonomic identification. Analysis and visualization of the distribution of operational taxonomic units was performed using QIIME75 (link) and PhyloToAST.76 (link) Bioconductor package for R, DESeq2, was used to perform differential expression analysis of the annotated microbial transcripts.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
9

Paired-end Genome Sequencing Protocol

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Paired-end libraries with average insert size of approximately 500 bp were constructed for each sample according to the manufacturer’s instructions (Illumina, San Diego, CA). Library quality and concentration were determined using an Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer (Agilent Technologies, Palo Alto, CA) and Qubit 3.0 Fluorometer (Life Technologies, CA, USA). These libraries were subjected to 2 × 100 bp paired-end (PE100) sequencing on a HiSeq2000 instrument (Illumina). A standard Illumina base-calling pipeline was used to process the raw fluorescent images and the called sequences. Read quality was evaluated using the FastQC package (www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/). For genome re-sequencing data, short-reads were trimmed 15 bp from the 3′-end according to the base quality distributions. The raw sequencing data reported in this paper have been publicly deposited in the NCBI Short Reads Archive (SRA) with accession number SRP047477.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
10

Differential Gene Expression Analysis of MAM-Treated Rats

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Raw sequencing data was processed by the Illumina base-calling pipeline and de-multiplexed. Sequence quality was ascertained using FastQC (http://www.bioinformatics.bbsrc.ac.uk/projects/fastqc), and based on the output, reads were trimmed 15 bp at the 5’ end and filtered for quality (>30% N calls or >10% of the sequence with Phred quality<20 were omitted) using CutAdapt.35 Trimmed sequences from the two pools (MAM-treated and saline) were aligned to the rat genome (Ensembl release 81, Rnor_6.0 ftp://ftp.ensembl.org/pub/release-81/fasta/rattus_norvegicus/dna/) using Tophat246 (link) on an in-house Linux cluster with the following command: tophat2 -N 4 -r 150 -p 8 --read-edit-dist 4 rn6 trimmed_R1.fastq.gz trimmed_R2.fastq.gz --transcriptome-index rn6.gtf. The resulting transcriptome .bam files were assembled and quantified using the Cufflinks program, and differential expression between the control pool and the treated pool was ascertained using the Cuffdiff program.47 (link) Because we were comparing two pooled groups only, with no replicates, results were filtered by: 1) sum of normalized sequence counts across both pools 10; and 2) log2(fold_change) of greater than 1.5 or less than -1.5, including transcripts that were exclusive to either treatment or control (log2(fold)change = +/− ∞).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand

About PubCompare

Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.

We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.

However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.

Ready to get started?

Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required

Sign up now

Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!