3,006
Views
16
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

Assessment of methods for serum extracellular vesicle small RNA sequencing to support biomarker development

ORCID Icon, , , &
Article: 1684425 | Received 19 Apr 2019, Accepted 17 Oct 2019, Published online: 05 Nov 2019
 

ABSTRACT

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) have great potential as a source for clinically relevant biomarkers since they can be readily isolated from biofluids and carry microRNA (miRNA), mRNA, and proteins that can reflect disease status. However, the biological and technical variability of EV content is unknown making comparisons between healthy subjects and patients difficult to interpret. In this study, we sought to establish a laboratory and bioinformatics analysis pipeline to analyse the small RNA content within EVs from patient serum that could serve as biomarkers and to assess the biological and technical variability of EV RNA content in healthy individuals. We sequenced EV small RNA from multiple individuals (biological replicates) and sequenced multiple replicates per individual (technical replicates) using the Illumina Truseq protocol. We observed that the replicates of samples clustered by subject indicating that the biological variability (~95%) was greater than the technical variability (~0.50%). We observed that ~30% of the sequencing reads were miRNAs. We evaluated the technical parameters of sequencing by spiking the EV RNA preparation with a mix of synthetic small RNA and demonstrated a disconnect between input concentration of the spike-in RNA and sequencing read frequencies indicating that bias was introduced during library preparation. To determine whether there are differences between library preparation platforms, we compared the Truseq with the Nextflex protocol that had been designed to reduce bias in library preparation. While both methods were technically robust, the Nextflex protocol reduced the bias and exhibited a linear range across input concentrations of the synthetic spike-ins. Altogether, our results indicate that technical variability is much smaller than biological variability supporting the use of EV small RNAs as potential biomarkers. Our findings also indicate that the choice of library preparation method leads to artificial differences in the datasets generated invalidating the comparability of sequencing data across library preparation platforms.

Acknowledgments

Transmission electron microscopy was carried out in the Core Electron Microscopy Facility of the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester MA. We thank Greg Hendricks (UMass) for help preparing samples. We thank the Genome Technology Access Center in the Department of Genetics at Washington University School of Medicine for help with genomic analysis. The Center is partially supported by NCI Cancer Center Support Grant #P30 CA91842 to the Siteman Cancer Center and by ICTS/CTSA Grant# UL1TR002345 from the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and NIH Roadmap for Medical Research. This publication is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official view of NCRR or NIH.

Disclosure statement

SS, SHC and CC are employees of AbbVie Inc. MXD and VK were employees at Abbvie Inc. at the time of the study. The design, study conduct, and financial support for this research were provided by AbbVie. AbbVie participated in the interpretation of data, review, and approval of the publication.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the AbbVie [1].