nxn

nxn

Share this post

nxn
nxn
Low mapping rate 4 - Bacterial contamination in reagents
Copy link
Facebook
Email
Notes
More

Low mapping rate 4 - Bacterial contamination in reagents

Valentine Svensson's avatar
Valentine Svensson
Sep 15, 2017
Share

The large amount of amplification needed to get usable material from single cells cause us to get detectable signal from minor effects such as ribosomal RNA or TSO concatemers. This also means reagents need to be particularly pure. Several studies have inviestigated the bacterial contents in kits used for sequencing studies, investigating the 'kitome'.

Reagents might have a small amount of contamination which will not be detectable in the "bulk" assays with more input material it was designed for, or even for relatively large single cells.

In particular, some commercial reverse transcriptases have been reported to contain contaminating bacteria. This thread on Seqansweres is generally recommended for anyone using scRNA-seq. A few years ago multiple people reported electropherograms which showed different sample purity depending on the reagent lot. This is an illustrateive plot reported by user bplevi:

The thread contains more examples good vs bad lots of reagents. They also reported which lots they had had success or failure with. For the data analyzed in the previous posts of the series, SuperScript II has also been used, though I don't know the lot number.

The company producing SuperScript II later acknowledged a couple of lots where contamination of E. coli had beed detected.

Analysing the reads from my data, I didn't see contribution from E. coli, however, I did find contamination from Pseudomonas. This bacterial family have also been reported in papers describing reagent contamination.

I added sequences for Pseudomonas 16S and 23S to the Salmon reference, reran the samples, and compared the results to the previous iteration.

With this addition the mapping rate for the majority of the cells jump up to ~75%!

From the scatter plot above we can see that before adding the Pseudomonas sequences, the mapping rate was more heterogenous. As we did before, we can see if this relates to the individual plates.

It is quite interesting that some plates have a larger contribution of TSO concatemers while others have larger contributions of bacterial sequences. All these plates are suppowed to have the same lots of reagents. However, the plates are sorted on different days then stored in a freezer until the experiment is done. It might be the case that TSO products and bacterial products degrade differently due to this.

(I should also acknowledge Luisa for pointing me to various bacterial resources.)


Subscribe to nxn

By Valentine Svensson · Launched 10 months ago
What do you mean 'heterogeneity'?
Share
SCVI — Integrating or not?
In modern single cell analysis workflows you fit a model to your data that allow you to ask questions about the data.
Mar 18 â€¢ 
Valentine Svensson
Actionable scRNA-seq clusters
Recently Jean Fan published a blog post about "real" scRNA-seq clusters. The general idea is that if there is not differential expression between…
Mar 5, 2018 â€¢ 
Valentine Svensson
Merging SCVI models
There are massive amounts of single-cell RNA-seq data, and data is still being produced.
May 21 â€¢ 
Valentine Svensson

Ready for more?

© 2025 Valentine Svensson
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start writingGet the app
Substack is the home for great culture

Share

Copy link
Facebook
Email
Notes
More