---
author: Sam White
toc-title: Contents
toc-depth: 5
toc-location: left
date: 2015-06-01 23:36:11+00:00
layout: post
slug: sample-submission-geoduck-gonad-for-rna-seq
title: Sample Submission - Geoduck Gonad for RNA-seq
categories:
  - 2015
  - Protein expression profiles during sexual maturation in Geoduck
tags:
  - DNased RNA
  - geoduck
  - Geo_pool_F
  - Geo_pool_M
  - gonad
  - HiSeq2500
  - Illumina
  - Panopea generosa
  - RNA-seq
---

Prepared two pools of geoduck RNA for RNA-seq (Illumina HiSeq2500, 100bp, PE) with GENEWIZ, Inc.

I pooled a set of female and a set of male RNAs that had been selected by Steven based on [the Bioanalyzer results from Friday](https://robertslab.github.io/sams-notebook/posts/2015/2015-05-28-bioanalyzer-geoduck-gonad-rna-quality-assessment/).

The female RNA pool used 210ng of each sample, with the exception being sample #08. This sample used 630ng. The reason for this was due to the fact that there weren't any other female samples to use from this developmental time point. The two other developmental time points each had three samples contributing to the pool. So, three times the quantity of the other individual samples was used to help equalize the time point contribution to the pooled sample. Additionally, 630ng used the entirety of sample #08.

The male RNA pool used 315ng of each sample. This number differs from the 210ng used for the female RNAs so that the two pools would end up with the same total quantity of RNA. However, now that I've typed this, this doesn't matter since the libraries will be equalized before being run on the Illumina HiSeq2500. Oh well. As long as each sample in each pool contributed to the total amount of RNA, then it's all good.

The two pools were shipped O/N on dry ice.




    
  * Geo_pool_M

    
  * Geo_pool_F



Calculations (Google Sheet): [20150601_Geoduck_GENEWIZ_calcs](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cqVdYkTjzxc0TI2RV7EAxwO9_yqlKrvWSs4EIDC0WdY/edit?usp=sharing)