- About
- Core Facilities
- Bioinformatics
- Biocomputing
- Health Data
- Training
- Contact Us
A recent manuscript [1] documented the "index switching" of multiplexed samples on the Illumina platforms. This issue is distinct from the "cross-talk"/"sample bleeding" issue we previously identified [2]. Illumina has released a white paper [3] ("Effects of Index Misassignment on Multiplexing and Downstream Analysis") and website [4] that address "index switching"/"index hopping."
Illumina has partnered with IDT to create a unique set of dual indices (sets of 24, 96, or 384) which can help reduce "index hopping" for TruSeq RNA and DNA library prep workflows. [5]
In the meantime, until we can provide further information, we recommend to avoid multiplexing samples together when index switching from one sample to another at a level of up to 2% could cause a biologically misleading false positive result. If you are uncertain about your multiplexing design please consult with the CQLS staff.
References
[1] http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/04/09/125724
[2] http://cqls.oregonstate.edu/core/illumina-hiseq-3000/illumina-barcodes
[3] https://www.illumina.com/content/dam/illumina-marketing/documents/products/whitepapers/index-hopping-white-paper-770-2017-004.pdf
[4] https://www.illumina.com/science/education/minimizing-index-hopping.html
[5] https://support.illumina.com/sequencing/uniquedualindex.html
Please be advised that we have observed cases in which the Illumina HiSeq and MiSeq platforms have incorrectly assigned an index (“barcode”) to a sequence from an adjacent cluster on the flow cell. This “sample bleeding” [1] results in sequences (including PhiX clusters that have no index read) that are mis-binned into the incorrect FASTQ file during the demultiplexing step. Sample bleeding occurs due to characteristics of the Illumina hardware/software and is not related to biological cross-contamination. Anecdotally, sample bleeding has been observed to occur in less than 0.1% of sequences using single indexes and in less than 0.001% of sequences using dual indices.
Experiments using rare sequences in a sample to indicate the presence of a novel sequence may be impacted, e.g., such as in identifying the presence of a transcript in an RNA-seq experiment via a few reads or identifying novel sequence in a genome based on contigs with very low coverage.
The following may help mitigate the sample bleeding issue:
[1] “Strategies for Achieving High Sequencing Accuracy for Low Diversity Samples and Avoiding Sample Bleeding Using Illumina Platform” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4393298/)
[2] http://cqls.oregonstate.edu/core/illumina-hiseq-3000/illumina-barcodes
[3] http://cqls.oregonstate.edu/core/illumina-hiseq-3000/phix-spike
[4] http://cqls.oregonstate.edu/core/illumina-hiseq-3000
[5] http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/research/research-cores/massively-parallel-sequencing.cfm
Please be advised that we have observed cases in which the (unsupported) mixing of indexing kits in a single lane on the HiSeq and MiSeq platforms (e.g., dual and single indexed samples in the same lane) have resulted in unintended binning, i.e., sequences may be mis-binned (mis-assigned) into the incorrect FASTQ file during the demultiplexing step.
This mis-binning can occur as both the HiSeq 3000 and MiSeq demultiplexing step allows for a 1 base mismatch in the index read by default. Indexes that are close in base composition may be mis-binned due to sequencing error when allowing for this 1 base mismatch.
This unintended binning issue can be mitigated by re-demultiplexing a lane allowing for a 0 base mismatch in the index reads, i.e., indices must be perfectly matched to be “binned.”
Please contact Matthew if you have questions or require re-demultiplexing of a lane that may be affected by this issue.
Illumina samples can be barcoded or indexed using two different techniques: