Cargando…
A direct comparison of interphase FISH versus low-coverage single cell sequencing to detect aneuploidy reveals respective strengths and weaknesses
Aneuploidy has been reported to occur at remarkably high levels in normal somatic tissues using Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH). Recently, these reports were contradicted by single-cell low-coverage whole genome sequencing (scL-WGS) analyses, which showed aneuploidy frequencies at least an...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6642082/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31324840 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-46606-w |
_version_ | 1783436907648122880 |
---|---|
author | Andriani, Grasiella A. Maggi, Elaine Piqué, Daniel Zimmerman, Samuel E. Lee, Moonsook Quispe-Tintaya, Wilber Maslov, Alexander Campisi, Judith Vijg, Jan Mar, Jessica C. Montagna, Cristina |
author_facet | Andriani, Grasiella A. Maggi, Elaine Piqué, Daniel Zimmerman, Samuel E. Lee, Moonsook Quispe-Tintaya, Wilber Maslov, Alexander Campisi, Judith Vijg, Jan Mar, Jessica C. Montagna, Cristina |
author_sort | Andriani, Grasiella A. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Aneuploidy has been reported to occur at remarkably high levels in normal somatic tissues using Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH). Recently, these reports were contradicted by single-cell low-coverage whole genome sequencing (scL-WGS) analyses, which showed aneuploidy frequencies at least an order of magnitude lower. To explain these seemingly contradictory findings, we used both techniques to analyze artificially generated mock aneuploid cells and cells with natural random aneuploidy. Our data indicate that while FISH tended to over-report aneuploidies, a modified 2-probe approach can accurately detect low levels of aneuploidy. Further, scL-WGS tends to underestimate aneuploidy levels, especially in a polyploid background. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6642082 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-66420822019-07-25 A direct comparison of interphase FISH versus low-coverage single cell sequencing to detect aneuploidy reveals respective strengths and weaknesses Andriani, Grasiella A. Maggi, Elaine Piqué, Daniel Zimmerman, Samuel E. Lee, Moonsook Quispe-Tintaya, Wilber Maslov, Alexander Campisi, Judith Vijg, Jan Mar, Jessica C. Montagna, Cristina Sci Rep Article Aneuploidy has been reported to occur at remarkably high levels in normal somatic tissues using Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH). Recently, these reports were contradicted by single-cell low-coverage whole genome sequencing (scL-WGS) analyses, which showed aneuploidy frequencies at least an order of magnitude lower. To explain these seemingly contradictory findings, we used both techniques to analyze artificially generated mock aneuploid cells and cells with natural random aneuploidy. Our data indicate that while FISH tended to over-report aneuploidies, a modified 2-probe approach can accurately detect low levels of aneuploidy. Further, scL-WGS tends to underestimate aneuploidy levels, especially in a polyploid background. Nature Publishing Group UK 2019-07-19 /pmc/articles/PMC6642082/ /pubmed/31324840 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-46606-w Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Article Andriani, Grasiella A. Maggi, Elaine Piqué, Daniel Zimmerman, Samuel E. Lee, Moonsook Quispe-Tintaya, Wilber Maslov, Alexander Campisi, Judith Vijg, Jan Mar, Jessica C. Montagna, Cristina A direct comparison of interphase FISH versus low-coverage single cell sequencing to detect aneuploidy reveals respective strengths and weaknesses |
title | A direct comparison of interphase FISH versus low-coverage single cell sequencing to detect aneuploidy reveals respective strengths and weaknesses |
title_full | A direct comparison of interphase FISH versus low-coverage single cell sequencing to detect aneuploidy reveals respective strengths and weaknesses |
title_fullStr | A direct comparison of interphase FISH versus low-coverage single cell sequencing to detect aneuploidy reveals respective strengths and weaknesses |
title_full_unstemmed | A direct comparison of interphase FISH versus low-coverage single cell sequencing to detect aneuploidy reveals respective strengths and weaknesses |
title_short | A direct comparison of interphase FISH versus low-coverage single cell sequencing to detect aneuploidy reveals respective strengths and weaknesses |
title_sort | direct comparison of interphase fish versus low-coverage single cell sequencing to detect aneuploidy reveals respective strengths and weaknesses |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6642082/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31324840 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-46606-w |
work_keys_str_mv | AT andrianigrasiellaa adirectcomparisonofinterphasefishversuslowcoveragesinglecellsequencingtodetectaneuploidyrevealsrespectivestrengthsandweaknesses AT maggielaine adirectcomparisonofinterphasefishversuslowcoveragesinglecellsequencingtodetectaneuploidyrevealsrespectivestrengthsandweaknesses AT piquedaniel adirectcomparisonofinterphasefishversuslowcoveragesinglecellsequencingtodetectaneuploidyrevealsrespectivestrengthsandweaknesses AT zimmermansamuele adirectcomparisonofinterphasefishversuslowcoveragesinglecellsequencingtodetectaneuploidyrevealsrespectivestrengthsandweaknesses AT leemoonsook adirectcomparisonofinterphasefishversuslowcoveragesinglecellsequencingtodetectaneuploidyrevealsrespectivestrengthsandweaknesses AT quispetintayawilber adirectcomparisonofinterphasefishversuslowcoveragesinglecellsequencingtodetectaneuploidyrevealsrespectivestrengthsandweaknesses AT maslovalexander adirectcomparisonofinterphasefishversuslowcoveragesinglecellsequencingtodetectaneuploidyrevealsrespectivestrengthsandweaknesses AT campisijudith adirectcomparisonofinterphasefishversuslowcoveragesinglecellsequencingtodetectaneuploidyrevealsrespectivestrengthsandweaknesses AT vijgjan adirectcomparisonofinterphasefishversuslowcoveragesinglecellsequencingtodetectaneuploidyrevealsrespectivestrengthsandweaknesses AT marjessicac adirectcomparisonofinterphasefishversuslowcoveragesinglecellsequencingtodetectaneuploidyrevealsrespectivestrengthsandweaknesses AT montagnacristina adirectcomparisonofinterphasefishversuslowcoveragesinglecellsequencingtodetectaneuploidyrevealsrespectivestrengthsandweaknesses AT andrianigrasiellaa directcomparisonofinterphasefishversuslowcoveragesinglecellsequencingtodetectaneuploidyrevealsrespectivestrengthsandweaknesses AT maggielaine directcomparisonofinterphasefishversuslowcoveragesinglecellsequencingtodetectaneuploidyrevealsrespectivestrengthsandweaknesses AT piquedaniel directcomparisonofinterphasefishversuslowcoveragesinglecellsequencingtodetectaneuploidyrevealsrespectivestrengthsandweaknesses AT zimmermansamuele directcomparisonofinterphasefishversuslowcoveragesinglecellsequencingtodetectaneuploidyrevealsrespectivestrengthsandweaknesses AT leemoonsook directcomparisonofinterphasefishversuslowcoveragesinglecellsequencingtodetectaneuploidyrevealsrespectivestrengthsandweaknesses AT quispetintayawilber directcomparisonofinterphasefishversuslowcoveragesinglecellsequencingtodetectaneuploidyrevealsrespectivestrengthsandweaknesses AT maslovalexander directcomparisonofinterphasefishversuslowcoveragesinglecellsequencingtodetectaneuploidyrevealsrespectivestrengthsandweaknesses AT campisijudith directcomparisonofinterphasefishversuslowcoveragesinglecellsequencingtodetectaneuploidyrevealsrespectivestrengthsandweaknesses AT vijgjan directcomparisonofinterphasefishversuslowcoveragesinglecellsequencingtodetectaneuploidyrevealsrespectivestrengthsandweaknesses AT marjessicac directcomparisonofinterphasefishversuslowcoveragesinglecellsequencingtodetectaneuploidyrevealsrespectivestrengthsandweaknesses AT montagnacristina directcomparisonofinterphasefishversuslowcoveragesinglecellsequencingtodetectaneuploidyrevealsrespectivestrengthsandweaknesses |