Russell's Blog

New. Improved. Stays crunchy in milk.

How to sequence 10,000 metagenomes with a 3D printer

Posted by Russell on September 19, 2011 at 1:15 a.m.
For my thesis project, one of the things I would like to do is sequence many different samples, perhaps on the order of several hundred or thousand. It's easy enough to build sequencing libraries these days, at least, with Illumina, anyway. Obviously, doing a couple of hundred lanes of Illumina sequencing would be ridiculous (not even Jonathan Eisen is that nice to his graduate students), and so I'll be using several barcoded samples pooled into each lane. The barcoding chemistry itself was fairly tedious, until people starting doing transposon-based library construction.

A transposon is a little piece of DNA that copies itself around inside the genome of an organism, via an enzyme called transposase. Here's what the genetic element looks like :

Transposase binds the element at the inverted repeats on either end, and coils it into a loop. Then it cuts the DNA at the inverted repeats, and the complex floats away. It leaves complementary overhanging ends in the chromosome, which are usually repaired by DNA polymerase and DNA ligase (DNA gets broken surprisingly frequently in the normal workaday life of a cell; that's why DNA repair mechanisms are so important). When it's complexed to DNA, transposase grabs the DNA like this :

The transposase we're using (Tn5) is a homodimer; the two subunits are in dark and light blue. The inverted repeats (red) are bound to the complex at the interfaces between the subunits. The pink loop is the DNA that gets cut and pasted.

The complex then floats around in the cell until the transposase recognizes an integration site somewhere else in the genome. It then cleaves the DNA and inserts the payload into the break. DNA ligase then comes along and fixes the backbones. You can see why this kind of transposon is also called a cut-and-paste transposon.

The reason these are interesting for library construction is that you can prepare a transposon complex where the loop of payload DNA is broken. When the transposon integrates, it pastes in a gap. If you add a lot of transposons that aren't too choosy about their binding sits, they will chop up your target DNA. Fragmentation is one of the steps needed for sequencing library construction. What's nice about transposons is that when you use them to chop up your target DNA, they leave the two halves of their payload stuck onto the ends.

If you stuck your sequencing adapters on there, the fragmentation process also includes adapter ligation. If you added barcodes along with the sequencing adapters, the reaction combines almost all of the library construction into a single digest. Epicentre whimsically named this process "tagmentation." Get it?

However, there's still a fly in this ointment. The distribution of transposon insertions is a function of the relative concentrations of charged transposon complexes to target DNA, and DNA extraction, even from seemingly identical samples, can have highly variable yields. So, it's very important to control the input concentrations and reaction volumes during the digest. This is fairly easy if you're only making a dozen or so libraries, but what if you want to make ten thousand of them?

Measuring DNA concentrations of lots of samples is relatively easy, and there are lots of ways of doing it. We have a plate reader that can do this by florescence on titer plates with 1534 wells, or we could (ab)use the qPCR machine to give us DNA concentrations on 384 well titer plates. There are other ways, too.

However you quantify the DNA concentrations, you have to dilute each sample to the desired concentration before you can start the tagmentation process. If you get the concentrations wrong, the library comes out funny.

A few dozen library constructions calls for hours of tedious work at the bench. I've gotten better at wetlab stuff since my first rotation, and the transposon-based library construction helps a lot, but staking my Ph.D. on reliably powering through lots of molecular biology would be a bad idea. Some people might not blink an eye at this, but as soon as I find myself repeating something four or five times, my computer science upbringing starts whispering there has got to be a better way in my ear. And lo, there is indeed a better way.

Hundreds or thousands of library constructions would call for a robotic liquid handling machine. I spent some time researching these things, and I'm not impressed. The hardware is nice, but programming the protocols involves wading into a morass of crumbling, poorly maintained closed source software, expensive vendor support contracts, and a lot of debugging and down-time. Oh, and they're terrifyingly expensive, and can be kind of dangerous.

Dispensing water into titer plates doesn't seem like a very challenging robotics application, so I thought about building my own robot. It would probably be about the same amount of work as ordering, programming and debugging one of the commercial robots, and it would be more fun.

But, robots are just such a mainframe-ish solution. If there is one thing my dad taught me, it's that a lot of little machines working in concert will beat the stuffing out of a single big machine. The trick is figuring out how to organize and coordinate lots of little machines. The key to this problem is to do lots and lots of little reactions in parallel; the coordination requires lots of precise dilutions simultaneously. Getting this part right would crack the whole thing wide open, allowing you to easily do more reactions than you probably even want.

So. I'm going to make my own custom microtiter plates, just for the dilution. This satisfies the coordination criteria, and allows me to treat a plate-load of reactions identically. If each well has the right volume for the dilution, I can just fill all the wells up to the top, pipette in the same volume of raw DNA with a multichannel pipetter, let the DNA mix a little, and all the wells will be at equal concentration. Then I pipette that into the tagmentation reaction, and I'm done. With a good multichannel pipetter, I can do 384 reactions about as easily as I could do one.

All that's necessary is a 3D printer, and the ability to procedurally generate CAD/CAM files from the measured DNA concentrations. As it happens, this is really easy, thanks to a little Python library called SolidPython :

These are the wells of a 96-well plate with randomly chosen volumes for reach well.

One of the things I'm worried about is contamination. 3D printers are not really designed for making sterile parts. So, what I've done here is design a mold, and I'm going to cast the plate itself in PDMS silicone elastomer. PDMS is easy to cast, and it has the nice property of being extremely durable once it's set. And, even better, when exposed to UV, the surface depolymerizes and turns into, essentially, ordinary glass. I can autoclave the heck out if it, blast it with UV, and indulge in all manner of molecular paranoia.

If I can figure out a way to reliably sterilize thermoplastic, I'll skip the business with the PDMS casting, and simply print microtiter plates directly, like this :

By the way, I used the dimensions of a Corning round-bottom 96 well microplate. You can download the model from my account on Thingiverse.

So, I ordered a personal 3D printer. It looks like the hottest Open Source personal 3D printer right now, and the only one with a build volume larger than a titer plate, is the Ultimaker. I'd have really liked to have gone with MakerBot Industries' Thing-o-Matic, but the build volume is just a scoche too small. Come on, guys! Just a few more millimeters? Please?

Unfortunately, the Ultimaker has a four to six week lead time, so I have to wait for a while before ours arrives. At the suggestion of Ian Holmes, I headed off to Noisebridge, a hackerspace in the San Francisco's Mission District where they have a couple of 3D printers available for people to use. The machines are Cupcake CNC's, MakerBot's first kit. The ones at Noisebridge are... well, let's just say they are well-loved. The one I used had to be re-calibrated before it would go. 3D printers are pretty straightforward machines when it comes down to it, so it only took me a couple of minutes of poking around at it to figure out how to make the right adjustments. Then, it worked like a charm!

As you can see, I was a bit conservative about the design, since I wasn't sure how good the print quality would be (especially after my cack-handed ministrations).

I'm experimenting with PDMS casting now, but I'm going try some tests to see how thoroughly I can clean thermoplastic with UV. I'd really like to just order up a nice 384 well plate, and get right to it!

Anyway, I need to thank (or perhaps blame) Aaron Darling for getting me interested in transposon-based library construction, and for pointing out their significance to me.

Jack Gilbert on September 19, 2011 at 8:18 p.m.

I like it - I thought you might be trying something like this, we had considered the same, but then we were just not doing enough at one time to work through this solution, a dedicated tech can work through 386 dilutions in a day. you could use this to do the same in 10 minutes....and that it awesome. So I am very interested.

Thing, is I am not sure this solves your sequencing cost problem. For example, It would still cost $600,000 to run Illumina metagenomes on 10,000 samples even without the library construction to enable multiplexing. And that is not with a cost recovery mechanism for your sequencing centre. Also how much is the epicentre kit per sample?

Are you really planning to run 10,000 metagenomes a la EMP?

Jack

Russell on September 19, 2011 at 10:20 p.m.

The big advantage to the transposon library construction is that it also barcodes. The 10,000 number is indeed kind of fanciful at the moment, but 10,000 libraries would fit onto 26 microtiter plates, which when pooled one per lane would take up a little more than one and a half runs of the machine.

Also, there's no reason one couldn't pool all 10,000 samples into one lane. If you pooled into one lane, it would cost about $2000 and yield about 12,000 reads per sample. Data wise, that would put you about where the field was in 2003, except that each sample would cost $0.25 (instead of $100,000, or whatever Sanger cost).

As for the kits... well, it's not like expression vectors for Tn5 are hard to find. Labs have been passing them around for, what? Decades?

Patrik D'haeseleer on September 21, 2011 at 12:33 a.m.

Hi Russell - very interesting work!

I love the idea of bypassing the "obvious" solution - a liquid handling robot - by just printing custom microtiter plates on the fly. Clever! Eventually, I think we definitely need better open-source liquid handling robots as well, and for this particular application it's possible that could wind up being a better long-term solution. But I could definitely see other places where having a 3D printer "in the loop" would open up all sorts of possibilities.

There's been a lot of discussion within the DIYbio community about DIY liquid handling robots, alternative plate designs, and innovative ways to democratize bioscience in general. I cross-posted a link to your blog post on the DIYbio and BioCurious google groups:

http://groups.google.com/group/biocurious/browse_thread/thread/e20ce1fcf3ff85df?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/diybio/browse_thread/thread/e20ce1fcf3ff85df?hl=en

BioCurious is a community-run hackerspace for biotech just opened in Sunnyvale. I know it's a long drive, but it would be great if we could get you to do a little show-and-tell about your work at some point!

Russell on September 21, 2011 at 12:54 a.m.

Patrik --

A decent, reasonably-priced benchtop liquid handling robot would be fantastic. I will be teaching a research seminar this Winter Quarter on laboratory robotics. Some undergraduates from the UC Davis Robotics Club are going to build a couple of RepRaps using our printer, and then will modify one of them to dispense water. Maybe other liquids, too, depending on what design they come up with.

When I have something working, I'd love to come by and demo it!

Russell

Brett Beitzel on September 29, 2011 at 9 p.m.

I saw this post mentioned on Keith Robison's Omics Omics blog. I ran across a mention of these limited DNA binding capacity beads (http://www.axygenbio.com/products/axyprep-mag-pcr-normalizer-kit) a couple of weeks ago, and they seem like another way to normalize large numbers of samples. They are designed for PCR products, but might work for larger DNAs.

I haven't used these, so this isn't an endorsement. Thought they might be useful, though.

Cheers,
Brett

Russell on September 29, 2011 at 10:42 p.m.

Brett --

The DNA binding beads are really cool. They would work very well if I had somewhat more consistent yields from DNA extractions, rather than variation over five or maybe six orders of magnitude.

I didn't think capture beads could do this yet. Maybe I'm wrong?


Russell

HFM on October 04, 2011 at 7:25 a.m.

A clever solution. Would you have to fill the wells one at a time?

Though, I was an automation jockey once upon a time, and if I were really planning to do 10,000 of the darn things, I'd do my best to bring in an Echo liquid handler. They are designed for per-well cherrypicking, and so scriptable a biologist could do it. You could stamp and spec the DNA, put it on the Echo, and have it automatically plate the desired amount of DNA into each well of a transposon master mix plate. Can't speak for the 1536 capacity, but used it 384-to-384 for custom PCR plates all the time. (No, I have nothing to do with their company...but give me a liquid handler that I don't want to throw out the window, and I'll happily give you a shoutout.)

You could probably convince the standard robots to do the same, but it would be appreciably harder.

Russell on October 04, 2011 at 11:32 a.m.

My plan is to fill the wells with dilution buffer (water, I suppose) simply by submerging the whole plate. Then I will evaporate enough to make room for the raw DNA solution by placing the flooded dilution plate into a little bench-top vacuum desiccator.

Then, I will do everything with a multichannel pipetter.

A couple of people have told me about how much they love the Echo. Unfortunately, the Echo is way, way, way out of my price range.

The exciting thing about my approach here is that all of the equipment will cost less than $2000. The Echo could beat my system in terms of speed simplicity, but you'd need to be running a sequencing factory to justify the cost.

Brian on October 05, 2011 at 10:08 p.m.

Similar idea to Axygen but more off-the-shelf: SequalPrep from Invitrogen. Add excess DNA, and it elutes a small fixed amount (25 ng per 96 well, ~$50/plate). Designed as to normalize long PCR rxns prior to NGS. Heard a new Epicentre Nextera kit is coming soon with more barcodes - this is a great tool for easy tagmentation of low input amounts in HT - keep working on it!

http://www.invitrogen.com/site/us/en/home/Products-and-Services/Applications/Nucleic-Acid-Amplification-and-Expression-Profiling/DNA-Sequencing/DNASeq-misc/Next_Generation_Sequencing_Sample_Prep.html#normalizationplate

Russell on October 06, 2011 at 12:14 a.m.

Brain --

I hadn't seen the SequalPrep thing before. That's pretty cool. Though, it looks like it would be more suitable for purifying PCR products than for raw DNA.

Our lab is currently working on a project where the samples are extremely small (a few milligrams of material scraped with a pick), and the DNA yields are in the tens of picograms.

But, for samples that consistently yield lots of DNA, this might actually be pretty handy!


Russell

SS_AA on October 06, 2011 at 2:40 a.m.

The SequalPrep fills this need pretty well. You just add your final library and elute. The normalization is pretty consistent across the plate.

We use it for several platforms across the lab.

Russell on October 07, 2011 at 3:15 a.m.

SS_AA --

The SequalPrep might work for library construction with mechanical shearing, but it won't work for transposon libraries with low-mass input DNA. We need to set the concentrations exactly, and the total mass of the DNA will often be around one to ten picograms per library. This has to be done prior to library construction, or the size distribution after transposase incubation will be wrong. The SequalPrep isn't intended to address this particular need.

It does look like it would be really useful for amplicon sequencing, though.


Russell

Jon on October 15, 2011 at 8:07 p.m.

Fun stuff!

Thought: if you want to go the custom plate route, why not throw a solid blank onto a CNC and drill out your wells? You'll probably have smoother sides than you'd get with a printer, which might save headaches in sterilization down the road; it's also going to be a lot faster.

Good luck!

Russell on October 16, 2011 at 5:06 a.m.

Jon --

I might end up doing just that. I've been eyeing this thing :

http://makeyourbot.org/mantis9-1

Russell

Benjamin on November 16, 2011 at 2:33 p.m.

I love your creativity and I share your way of thinking and this comments thread is a goldmine of information, thanks. If you're worried about sterilising your printed plate, surely there are simple chemical methods you can use rather than casting the whole thing again... If just dealing with DNA then it doesn't even need to be sterile in the microbiological sense, just no DNA.

Ignore this field:
 optional; will not be displayed
Don't put anything in this field:
 optional
Don't put anything here:
Leave this empty:
URLs auto-link and some tags are allowed: <a><b><i><p>.