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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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