Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 22, 2026

RIBO-seq in Bacteria: a Sample Collection and Library Preparation Protocol for NGS Sequencing
Published on: August 7, 2021
Systematic evaluation of RNA-Seq preparation protocol performance
Hsueh-Ping Chao1,2, Yueping Chen1, Yoko Takata1
1Department of Epigenetics and Molecular Carcinogenesis, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Science Park, Smithville, TX, 78957, USA.
Background:
RNA-Seq is currently the most widely used tool to analyze whole-transcriptome profiles. There are numerous commercial kits available to facilitate preparing RNA-Seq libraries; however, it is still not clear how some of these kits perform in terms of: 1) ribosomal RNA removal; 2) read coverage or recovery of exonic vs. intronic sequences; 3) identification of differentially expressed genes (DEGs); and 4) detection of long non-coding RNA (lncRNA). In RNA-Seq analysis, understanding the strengths and limitations of commonly used RNA-Seq library preparation protocols is important, as this technology remains costly and time-consuming.
Results:
In this study, we present a comprehensive evaluation of four RNA-Seq kits. We used three standard input protocols: Illumina TruSeq Stranded Total RNA and mRNA kits, a modified NuGEN Ovation v2 kit, and the TaKaRa SMARTer Ultra Low RNA Kit v3. Our evaluation of these kits included quality control measures such as overall reproducibility, 5' and 3' end-bias, and the identification of DEGs, lncRNAs, and alternatively spliced transcripts. Overall, we found that the two Illumina kits were most similar in terms of recovering DEGs, and the Illumina, modified NuGEN, and TaKaRa kits allowed identification of a similar set of DEGs. However, we also discovered that the Illumina, NuGEN and TaKaRa kits each enriched for different sets of genes.
Conclusions:
At the manufacturers' recommended input RNA levels, all the RNA-Seq library preparation protocols evaluated were suitable for distinguishing between experimental groups, and the TruSeq Stranded mRNA kit was universally applicable to studies focusing on protein-coding gene profiles. The TruSeq protocols tended to capture genes with higher expression and GC content, whereas the modified NuGEN protocol tended to capture longer genes. The SMARTer Ultra Low RNA Kit may be a good choice at the low RNA input level, although it was inferior to the TruSeq mRNA kit at standard input level in terms of rRNA removal, exonic mapping rates and recovered DEGs. Therefore, the choice of RNA-Seq library preparation kit can profoundly affect data outcomes. Consequently, it is a pivotal parameter to consider when designing an RNA-Seq experiment.
More Related Videos
05:07Rup (RNA-seq Usability Assessment Pipeline) - Quality Control for Bulk RNA-seq Experiments in Eukaryotes
Published on: November 7, 2025
09:26Identification of Footprints of RNA:Protein Complexes via RNA Immunoprecipitation in Tandem Followed by Sequencing RIPiT-Seq
Published on: July 10, 2019
Related Concept Videos
RNA-seq
Before the discovery of RNA-seq, microarray-based methods and Sanger sequencing were used for transcriptome analysis. However, while...
Random and Systematic Errors
Systematic Sampling Method
Systematic sampling is one of the simplest methods...
Propagation of Uncertainty from Systematic Error
RNA Stability
RNA Interference
This process occurs naturally in cells, often through the activity of genomically-encoded microRNAs. Researchers can take advantage of this mechanism by introducing synthetic RNAs to deactivate specific genes for research or therapeutic purposes. For example, RNAi could be used...