Technical Considerations for Reduced Representation Bisulfite Sequencing with Multiplexed Libraries

Reduced representation bisulfite sequencing (RRBS), which couples bisulfite conversion and next generation sequencing, is an innovative method that specifically enriches genomic regions with a high density of potential methylation sites and enables investigation of DNA methylation at single-nucleotide resolution. Recent advances in the Illumina DNA sample preparation protocol and sequencing technology have vastly improved sequencing throughput capacity. Although the new Illumina technology is now widely used, the unique challenges associated with multiplexed RRBS libraries on this platform have not been previously described. We have made modifications to the RRBS library preparation protocol to sequence multiplexed libraries on a single flow cell lane of the Illumina HiSeq 2000. Furthermore, our analysis incorporates a bioinformatics pipeline specifically designed to process bisulfite-converted sequencing reads and evaluate the output and quality of the sequencing data generated from the multiplexed libraries. We obtained an average of 42 million paired-end reads per sample for each flow-cell lane, with a high unique mapping efficiency to the reference human genome. Here we provide a roadmap of modifications, strategies, and trouble shooting approaches we implemented to optimize sequencing of multiplexed libraries on an a RRBS background.

[1]  K. Voelkerding,et al.  Next-generation sequencing: from basic research to diagnostics. , 2009, Clinical chemistry.

[2]  H. Willard,et al.  X-inactivation profile reveals extensive variability in X-linked gene expression in females , 2005, Nature.

[3]  W. Marsden.  I and J , 2012 .

[4]  Euan J. Rodger,et al.  Comparison of alignment software for genome-wide bisulphite sequence data , 2012, Nucleic acids research.

[5]  A. Bird,et al.  DNA methylation landscapes: provocative insights from epigenomics , 2008, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[6]  Kevin M. Bowling,et al.  Analysis of DNA Methylation in a Three-Generation Family Reveals Widespread Genetic Influence on Epigenetic Regulation , 2011, PLoS genetics.

[7]  Michael Q. Zhang,et al.  Large-scale structure of genomic methylation patterns. , 2005, Genome research.

[8]  Christoph Bock,et al.  RRBSMAP: a fast, accurate and user-friendly alignment tool for reduced representation bisulfite sequencing , 2012, Bioinform..

[9]  Patrick J. Biggs,et al.  SolexaQA: At-a-glance quality assessment of Illumina second-generation sequencing data , 2010, BMC Bioinformatics.

[10]  S. Baylin,et al.  Altered methylation patterns in cancer cell genomes: cause or consequence? , 2002, Cancer cell.

[11]  T. Bestor,et al.  Activation of mammalian DNA methyltransferase by cleavage of a Zn binding regulatory domain. , 1992, The EMBO journal.

[12]  M. Metzker.  Sequencing technologies — the next generation , 2010, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[13]  Zachary D. Smith,et al.  Genome-scale DNA methylation mapping of clinical samples at single-nucleotide resolution , 2010, Nature Methods.

[14]  Stephen L. Hauser,et al.  Genome, epigenome and RNA sequences of monozygotic twins discordant for multiple sclerosis , 2010, Nature.

[15]  Alexander van Oudenaarden,et al.  Genes methylated by DNA methyltransferase 3b are similar in mouse intestine and human colon cancer. , 2011, The Journal of clinical investigation.

[16]  J. Kraut,et al.  Structure of Subtilisin BPN′ at 2.5 Å Resolution , 1969, Nature.

[17]  Wei Li,et al.  BSMAP: whole genome bisulfite sequence MAPping program , 2009, BMC Bioinformatics.

[18]  E. Kitamura,et al.  Quantitative analysis of human tissue-specific differences in methylation. , 2008, Biochemical and biophysical research communications.

[19]  C. Ku,et al.  Studying the epigenome using next generation sequencing , 2011, Journal of Medical Genetics.

[20]  V. Ingram,et al.  Cloning and sequencing of a cDNA encoding DNA methyltransferase of mouse cells. The carboxyl-terminal domain of the mammalian enzymes is related to bacterial restriction methyltransferases. , 1988, Journal of molecular biology.

[21]  Michael J. Ziller,et al.  Reference Maps of Human ES and iPS Cell Variation Enable High-Throughput Characterization of Pluripotent Cell Lines , 2011, Cell.

[22]  Peter M. Rice,et al.  The Sanger FASTQ file format for sequences with quality scores, and the Solexa/Illumina FASTQ variants , 2009, Nucleic acids research.

[23]  Christoph Grunau,et al.  Identification and resolution of artifacts in bisulfite sequencing. , 2002, Methods.

[24]  E. Meaburn,et al.  Next generation sequencing in epigenetics: insights and challenges. , 2012, Seminars in cell & developmental biology.

[25]  Zachary D. Smith,et al.  Preparation of reduced representation bisulfite sequencing libraries for genome-scale DNA methylation profiling , 2011, Nature Protocols.

[26]  A. Bird.  CpG-rich islands and the function of DNA methylation , 1986, Nature.

[27]  G. G. Stokes.  "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[28]  I. Morison,et al.  Monozygotic twins: genes are not the destiny? , 2011, Bioinformation.

[29]  Felix Krueger,et al.  Bismark: a flexible aligner and methylation caller for Bisulfite-Seq applications , 2011, Bioinform..

[30]  S. Andrews,et al.  Dynamic CpG island methylation landscape in oocytes and preimplantation embryos , 2011, Nature Genetics.

[31]  Zachary D. Smith,et al.  High-throughput bisulfite sequencing in mammalian genomes. , 2009, Methods.

[32]  T. Mikkelsen,et al.  Genome-scale DNA methylation maps of pluripotent and differentiated cells , 2008, Nature.

[33]  Thomas Werner,et al.  Next generation sequencing in functional genomics , 2010, Briefings Bioinform..