Ronit’s Notebook: Adjusted qPCR Data, COX1 Relative Mitochondrial Abundance Plot

To account for N/A Cq values, I substituted in a Cq value of 45 wherever the Cq value was nonexistent. This allows for some initial analysis of the data to see which genes might warrant further work. Below are the adjusted qPCR plots. I also generated the COX1 Cq plot (not normalized to actin) to examine relative mitochondrial abundance between stressed and non-stressed diploids and triploids.

atpsynthetasecox1dnmt1hathif1ahsc70hsp90mbd2mecp2sod

Shelly’s Notebook: Wed. Jan 30, 2019

Geoduck Broodstock Experiment

Gonad slices sent to HCS, Inc. for histology

List of samples sent: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Fgb5abuMR8TyiR9hbIjUW2mRg9eeoAd3pD3CdlPlqlo

Order form: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1UXb3Vc2scDMOwDsE5kWIyt8ozCF-buhj

Shipped through FedEx as hazardous goods of expected quantities, each of the 5 cassette jars contained 30 mL of 70% Ethanol (Stabilizer from PAXgene kit).

Low pH conditioning plans

Steven and I discussed stopping the treatment on Friday and combining the low pH group crates (Tank 1 and 2) into one ambient tote and Tank 3 and 4 crates into one ambient tote. This will make room for more broodstock and will hopefully rescue the low pH conditioned animals so we can get them to spawn/strip spawn. See slack discussion.

Oyster Seed Proteomics

Map the proteins to 2019 Uniprot accessions

For re-mapping the fasta to 2019 Uniprot accessions like Steven did in the past, I started the jupyter notebook linked below on Ostrich and it’s currently still running:

https://github.com/shellytrigg/OysterSeedProject/blob/master/jupyter/20190130_Cg_Giga_cont_AA.fa_BLASTP_uniprot_swprot2019.ipynb

Github desktop on Ostrich

Also got github desktop to work on Ostrich by downloading this older version that I found here. With the newest version, the graphics don’t work when you remote desktop in. But this older version works fine, probably because Ostrich is still running El Cap OS.

from shellytrigg http://bit.ly/2RuO5sE
via IFTTT

Shelly’s Notebook: Tues. Jan 30, 2019

Concentrating Geoduck Broodstock Hemocyte DNA for WGBS

Because the minimum concentration for WGBS with Genewiz is 20ng/ul, I pooled and precipitated the DNA samples from yesterday as follows:

  • I combined tank 3 samples 15 and 16, total volume ~200uL
  • I combined tank 2 samples 025 and 026, total volume ~200uL
  • I added 140uL isopropanol and 20uL 3M Sodium Acetate pH 5.2 to each ~200uL pooled sample
  • I vortexed to mix
  • I spun at 12000 rpm for 30 min at 4C
  • I removed the supernatent and added 500uL of 70% ethanol to each
  • I spun tubes for 10 min at 12000 rpm at 4C
  • I removed the supernatent and resuspended in 20uL EB (elution buffer from the EZNA kit, which I think is 10mM Tris, pH 8.5)

Qubit concentrations: Standard 2 = 100ng/ul

Animal ID Tank Treatment Conc. (ng/ul) Total DNA (ng)
15_16 3 amb 284 1230
025_026 2 low (pH 6.8) 53 830

We are going to send all of Tank 2 ‘025_026’ DNA and half of Tank 3 ‘15_16’ DNA, which Sam now has and planning to ship on Monday. The remaining Tank 3 ‘15_16’ DNA is in my box labeled ‘Shelly Trigg start date 10/11/2018’ in the -20C in rm 213.

Oyster seed proteomics time x temperature

Creating differential network visualizations

To create differential network visualizations, we need:

  1. protein relationships
    • this could be GO annotations, KEGG pathways, or even protein interaction information (although I’m not sure how conserved this is between species)
  2. a metric to quantify abundance changes
    • nodes could be colored by fold change and/or effect size to show up or down
    • node size could be relative to p-value, or even PCA loadings values
Calculating log fold change and p-values

Emma suggested calculating the ratio of ‘NUMSPECSTOT’ of each protein to the sum of NUMSPECSTOT for the sample. Then calculating log fold change. And using a proportions test for calculating the p-value.

I think all fold changes should be relative to day zero so that we can visualize what protein networks are active at each stage of development and compare differences between the two temperatures (sort of like what these guys did). For a figure, what I’m picturing is a 2 x 6 grid for the two different temperatures and 6 different days. And a network in each box of the grid showing proteins colored differently based on their fold change and sizes based on p-value significance.

Here is the R markdown file I made for calculating these. I used a Chi square proportions test for the p-values. So far I have only done one comparison (23C_day 3 to day 0).

Need to:

  • make a loop to do the rest of the comparisons
  • map the proteins to Uniprot accessions using an updated uniprot DB.
  • figure out what proteins are connected either by GO or physical interaction information

from shellytrigg http://bit.ly/2Ww7Zra
via IFTTT

Laura’s Notebook: Oly OA gonad histology & spawning data options

I’ve come full circle with my data from the Olympia oyster adult OA exposure project from 2017. After agonizing over the data for months (…years?), I’m moving forward with population-specific analysis, focusing on the effect of low pH on gonad & fecundity, with some minor findings regarding the offspring. Until a couple days ago I was all set to just use data from the 6C pre-treatment temperature groups (overwintered at 6C), but since we are now looking at population specific effects I may want to include the 10C groups (overwintered at 10C). The reasons to include both temperature groups are a) very simliar gonad results in both groups, b) more spawning data which support the population-specific reproduction theme, and c) I can refer to this paper when I write my QuantSeq paper (since RNA from larvae was from 10-low pH and 6-amb pH). If I go this route I will not analyze the 10C survival/growth data.

I’ve prepared some new figure options, particularly for the gonad histology data:

6C gonad data only, showing dominant stage, sex, and example gonad tissue

Gonad stage before pH treatment (n=54) and after 52 days in ambient pH (7.82±0.02, n=39) and low pH (7.31±0.02, n=39) for all populations combined. Gonad differed significantly between pH treatments (𝝌2=9.79, p=0.032), and between pre-treatment and ambient pH (𝝌2=6.61, p=0.146)

6C-Gonad-stages-and-sex.png

Shelly’s Notebook: Mon. Jan 28, 2019, Geoduck Broodstock DNA extraction from Hemocytes

Kaitlyn and I isolated DNA from four Jan. 4 hemocyte samples. Two samples were from Tank 2 (low pH) and two were from Tank 3 (ambient) treated animals. We used the EZNA kit and followed the manual with the following exceptions:

  • We started on step 2 because we had cells not tissue, so no tissue homogenization was necessary
  • Heat block in rm 213 was 59-65C instead of 60C because the digital setting was a few degrees off from the alcohol thermometer.
  • In step 6, the volumes transferred were:
    • 250uL for sample 16
    • 300uL for sample 15
    • 350uL for sample 26
    • 400uL for sample 25
  • We eluted with 2 x 50uL elution buffer warmed to 70C.

Then used 1 uL of each sample for Qubit BR.

Standard 2 read 98 ng/uL and 102 ng/uL, so average is 100 ng/uL which is what it should be.

Here are the following qubit readings for the samples:

Animal ID Tank Treatment Conc. (ng/ul) Total DNA (ng)
15 3 amb 12.3 1230
16 3 amb 56 5600
025 2 low (pH 6.8) 8.3 830
026 2 low (pH 6.8) 7.4 740

We will send these for WGBS sequencing.

from shellytrigg http://bit.ly/2FVxbSV
via IFTTT

Grace’s Notebook: Qiagen RNeasy Micro Plus Kit with Geoduck hemolymph and oyster tissue

Today I also tried the Qiagen RNeasy Micro Plus Kit on geoduck (P. generosa) hemolymph (2 samples) and oyster (C. viriginica) tissue (2 samples).

What I did today:

Samples used:
img

The geoduck hemolymph (1H and 2H) are the same from what I used in my Trizol LS Reagent test. I used 250ul of each sample for the Qiagen RNeasy Extraction.

The oyster tissue samples 0120 and 0139 are from Yaamini’s DNR project. I used the whole tissue sample, and after adding the 2-ME and Buffer RLT mixture, I homogenized the samples using blue plastic mini pestles.

Protocol: page 1; page 2

I used 10ul of 2-ME per sample, with 1mL of Buffer ATL in step 1.

During steps 5-7, I centrifuged at 10,000 rcf for 30s. Tube 0139 (oyster tissue) always had some extra liquid in the spin column, but it all got spun through after the 2min centrifuge at 10,000rcf after step 7.

Eluted samples with 14ul of RNase-free water (provided in kit).

Qubit results (used 1ul of sample):

The geoduck hemolymph samples were “Out of range TOO LOW”. Here’s what the graphs looked like for both hemolymph samples:
img

The oyster tissue samples were “Out of range TOO HIGH”. Here’s what the graphs looked like for both tissue samples:
img

Next steps:

Not sure if I should spend the time to bioanalyze the oyster tissue samples from this extraction as well as from the Trizol LS Reagent Extraction

I’ll create an issue to see what next steps should be.

But it could just be that there wasn’t geoduck hemolymph in the samples I used today. I used the same sample tube for both extractions… The other one she offered had much too small of an amount of hemolymph for me to use for either extraction.

from Grace’s Lab Notebook http://bit.ly/2ReVCvP
via IFTTT

Grace’s Notebook: Trizol LS Reagent RNA extraction using Geoduck hemolymph and oyster tissue

Today I tried out the Trizol LS Reagent RNA extraction protocol on two geoduck (P. generosa) hemolymph and two oyster (C. virginica) tissue samples. (GitHub Issue #533)

What I did today:

The samples I used (from this GitHub Issue):
img

The DNR samples are the oyster tissue samples (0114 and 0116) from Yaamini’s old project.
The geoduck hemolymph samples (1H and 2H) are from when Shelly was trying things out with some geoduck that were kept here at SAFS.

I followed the same protocol as I did for the crab hemolymph, with a few modifications.

After adding the Trizol LS Reagent to the samples and centrifuging them, there was no separation into a supernatant. They all looked like this:
img

The crab samples looked like this after that same step:
img

So, instead of transfering any clear supernatant to a new tube (there wasn’t any for these samples), I just moved on and added 200ul of chloroform to each sample, vortexed, let incubate at room T for a couple mins, then centrifuged.

After the samples were left to incubate after the addition of chloroform, there was already some separation:
img

After centrifuge step with the chloroform they looked like this:
Oyster tissue:
img
Geoduck hemolymph:
img

After the addition of isopropanol, incubate at room T, and centrifuge, they all looked like this (not an obvious white gel-like pellet at the bottom… but I continued as though there were one):
img

The rest of the protocol was pretty much the same, except that I forgot to heat up the heat block earlier, so they waited at room temp for about 5 mins before they incubated at 55C.

Qubit Results (google sheet link):

There was no detectable RNA in either of the geoduck hemolymph samples.

There WAS a lot of detectable RNA in one oyster tissue sample, and too much in the other. The Qubit screen was this for the one that was too high:
img

Next move:

Try out the geoduck hemolymph and some oyster tissue samples using the Qiagen RNeasy Plus Micro Kit

Bioanalyze all samples that had detectable RNA based on Qubit results

from Grace’s Lab Notebook http://bit.ly/2S9cI2y
via IFTTT