Single-cell DNA template strand sequencing

Last updated

Single-cell DNA template strand sequencing, or Strand-seq, is a technique for the selective sequencing of a daughter cell's parental template strands. [1] This technique offers a wide variety of applications, including the identification of sister chromatid exchanges in the parental cell prior to segregation, the assessment of non-random segregation of sister chromatids, the identification of misoriented contigs in genome assemblies, de novo genome assembly of both haplotypes in diploid organisms including humans, whole-chromosome haplotyping, and the identification of germline and somatic genomic structural variation, the latter of which can be detected robustly even in single cells.

Contents

Background

Strand-seq (single-cell and single-strand sequencing) was one of the first single-cell sequencing protocols described in 2012. [1] This genomic technique selectively sequencings the parental template strands in single daughter cells DNA libraries. [1] As a proof of concept study, the authors demonstrated the ability to acquire sequence information from the Watson and/or Crick chromosomal strands in an individual DNA library, depending on the mode of chromatid segregation; a typical DNA library will always contain DNA from both strands. The authors were specifically interested in showing the utility of strand-seq in detecting sister chromatid exchanges (SCEs) at high-resolution. They successfully identified eight putative SCEs in the murine (mouse) embryonic stem (meS) cell line with resolution up to 23 bp. This methodology has also been shown to hold great utility in discerning patterns of non-random chromatid segregation, especially in stem cell lineages. Furthermore, SCEs have been implicated as diagnostic indicators of genome stress, information that has utility in cancer biology. Most research on this topic involves observing the assortment of chromosomal template strands through many cell development cycles and correlating non-random assortment with particular cell fates. Single-cell sequencing protocols were foundational in the development of this technique, but they differ in several aspects.

Methodology

Similar methods

Past methods have been used to track the inheritance patterns of chromatids on a per-strand basis and elucidate the process of non-random segregation:

Pulse-chase

Pulse-chase experiments have been used for determining the segregation patterns of chromosomes in addition to studying other time-dependent cellular processes. [2] Briefly, pulse-chase assays allow researchers to track radioactively labelled molecules in the cell. In experiments used to study non-random chromosome assortment, stem cells are labeled or "pulsed" with a nucleotide analog that is incorporated in the replicated DNA strands. [3] This allows the nascent stands to be tracked through many rounds of replication. Unfortunately, this method is found to have poor resolution as it can only be observed at the chromatid level.

Chromosome-orientation fluorescence in situ hybridization (CO-FISH)

CO-FISH, or strand-specific fluorescence in situ hybridization, facilitates strand-specific targeting of DNA with fluorescently-tagged probes. [4] It exploits the uniform orientation of major satellites relative to the direction of telomeres, thus allowing strands to be unambiguously designated as "Watson" or "Crick" strands. Using unidirectional probes that recognize major satellite regions, coupled to fluorescently labelled dyes, individual strands can be bound. [4] To ensure that only the template strand is labelled, the newly formed strands must be degraded by BrdU incorporation and photolysis. This protocol offers improved cytogenetic resolution, allowing researchers to observe single strands as opposed to whole chromatids with pulse-chase experiments. Moreover, non-random segregation of chromatids can be directly assayed by targeting major satellite markers.

An example of a simplified Strand-seq protocol, starting with cells of interest. Once the illustrated steps have been completed the template strands can be prepared for sequencing. Strand-seq simple workflow.svg
An example of a simplified Strand-seq protocol, starting with cells of interest. Once the illustrated steps have been completed the template strands can be prepared for sequencing.

Wet lab protocols

Cells of interest are cultured either in vivo or in vitro. During S-phase cells are treated with bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU) which is then incorporated into their nascent DNA, acting as a substitute for thymidine. After at least one replication event has occurred, the daughter cells are synchronized at the G2 phase and individually separated by fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS). The cells are directly sorted into lysis buffer and their DNA is extracted. Having been arrested at a specified number of generations (usually one), the inheritance patterns of sister chromatids can be assessed. The following methods concentrate on the DNA sequencing of a single daughter cell's DNA. At this point the chromosomes are composed of nascent strands with BrdU in place of thymidine and the original template strands are primed for DNA sequencing library preparation. Since this protocol was published in 2012, [1] the canonical methodology is only well described for Illumina sequencing platforms; the protocol could very easily be adapted for other sequencing platforms, depending on the application. Next, the DNA is incubated with a special dye such that when the BrdU-dye complex is excited by UV light, nascent strands are nicked by photolysis. This process inhibits polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification of the nascent strand, allowing only the parental template strands to be amplified. Library construction proceeds as normal for Illumina paired-end sequencing. Multiplexing PCR primers are then ligated to the PCR amplicons with hexamer barcodes identifying which cell each fragment they are derived from. Unlike single cell sequencing protocols, Strand-seq does not utilize multiple displacement amplification or MALBAC for DNA amplification. Rather, it is solely dependent on PCR.

Bioinformatic processing

The output of BAIT, displaying the read counts for both Watson (W, green) and Crick (C, blue) strands. Each read count bar shows the number of reads aligned to a particular 200-kb bin of the reference genome. From here, parental template strand inheritance is inferred. For instance, if both copies of a 200-kb chromosomal segment in the daughter cell were synthesized from Watson template strands in the parent cell, this would be represented by a large green bar indicating purely W alignment in that chromosomal region. In addition, switches between homozygous and heterozygous states of template strand inheritance are interpreted as sister chromatid exchanges (SCEs). Bioinformatic Analysis of Inherited Templates (BAIT) Output.png
The output of BAIT, displaying the read counts for both Watson (W, green) and Crick (C, blue) strands. Each read count bar shows the number of reads aligned to a particular 200-kb bin of the reference genome. From here, parental template strand inheritance is inferred. For instance, if both copies of a 200-kb chromosomal segment in the daughter cell were synthesized from Watson template strands in the parent cell, this would be represented by a large green bar indicating purely W alignment in that chromosomal region. In addition, switches between homozygous and heterozygous states of template strand inheritance are interpreted as sister chromatid exchanges (SCEs).

The majority of current applications for Strand-seq start by aligning sequenced reads to a reference genome. Alignment can be performed using a variety of short-read aligners such as BWA and Bowtie. [5] [6] By aligning Strand-seq reads from a single cell to the reference genome, the inherited template strands can be determined. If the cell was sequenced after more than one generation, a pattern of chromatid assortment can be ascertained for the particular cell lineage at hand. The Bioinformatic Analysis of Inherited Templates (BAIT) was the first bioinformatic software to exclusively analyze reads generated from the Strand-seq methodology. [7] It begins by aligning the reads to a reference sequence, binning the genome into sections, and finally counting the number of Watson and Crick reads falling within each bin. From here, BAIT enables the identification of SCE events, misoriented contigs in the reference genome, aneuploid chromosomes and modes of sister chromatid segregation. It can also aid in assembling early-build genomes and assigning orphan scaffolds to locations within late-build genomes. Following BAIT, numerous bioinformatics tools have recently been introduced that use Strand-seq data for a variety of applications (see, for example, the following sections on haplotyping, de novo genome assembly, and discovery of structural variations in single cells, with reference to the respective linked articles).

Limitations

Strand-seq requires cells undergoing cell division for BrdU labeling, and thus is not applicable to formalin-fixed specimens or non-dividing cells. But it may be applied to normal mitotic cells and tissues, organoids, as well as leukemia and tumor samples using fresh or frozen primary specimens. Strand-seq is using Illumina sequencing, and applications that require sequence information from different sequencing technologies require new protocols, or alternatively integration of data generated using distinct sequencing platforms as recently show-cased. [8] [9]

Authors from the initial papers describing Strand-seq showed that they were able to attain a 23bp resolution for mapping SCEs, and other large chromosomal abnormalities are likely to share this mapping resolution (if breakpoint fine-mapping is performed). Resolution, however, is dependent on a combination of the sequencing platform used, library preparation protocols, and the number of cells analysed as well as the depth of sequencing per cell. However, it would be sensical for precision to further increase with sequencing technologies that don't incur errors in homopolymeric repeats.

Applications and utility

Identifying sister chromatid exchanges

Strand-seq was initially proposed as a tool to identify sister chromatid exchanges. [1] Being a process that is localized to individual cells, DNA sequencing of more than one cell would naturally scatter these effects and suggest an absence of SCE events. Moreover, classic single cell sequencing techniques are unable to show these events due to heterogeneous amplification biases and dual-strand sequence information, thereby necessitating Strand-seq. Using the reference alignment information, researchers can identify an SCE if the directionality of an inherited template strand changes.

Identifying misoriented contigs

Misoriented contigs are present in reference genomes at significant rates (ex. 1% in the mouse reference genome). [1] [10] Strand-seq, in contrast to conventional sequencing methods, can detect these misorientations. [1] Misoriented contigs are present where strand inheritance changes from one homozygous state to the other (ex. WW to CC, or CC to WW). Moreover, this state change is visible in every Strand-seq library, reinforcing the presence of a misoriented contig. [7]

Identifying non-random segregation of sister chromatids

Prior to the 1960s, it was assumed that sister chromatids were segregated randomly into daughter cells. However, non-random segregation of sister chromatids has been observed in mammalian cells ever since. [11] [12] There have been a few hypotheses proposed to explain the non-random segregation, including the Immortal Strand Hypothesis and the Silent Sister Hypothesis, one of which may hopefully be verified by methods involving Strand-seq.

‘’Immortal Strand Hypothesis’’

Mutations occur every time a cell divides. Certain long-lived cells (ex. stem cells) may be particularly affected by these mutations. The Immortal Strand Hypothesis proposes that these cells avoid mutation accumulation by consistently retaining parental template strands[9]. For this hypothesis to be true, sister chromatids from each and every chromosome must segregate in a non-random fashion. Additionally, one cell will retain the exact same set of template strands after each division, giving the rest to the other cell products of the division. [13]

‘’Silent Sister Hypothesis’’

This hypothesis states that sister chromatids have differing epigenetic signatures, thereby also differing expression regulation. When replication occurs, non-random segregation of sister chromatids ensures the fates of the daughter cells. [14] Assessing the validity of this hypothesis would require a joint analysis of Strand-seq and gene expression profiles for both daughter cells. [13]

Discovery of structural variations & aneuploid chromosomes

The output of BAIT shows the inheritance of parental template strands along the genome. [7] Normally, two template strands are inherited for each autosome, and any deviation from this number indicates an instance of aneuploidy, which can be visualised in single cells.

Inversions are a class of copy-number balanced structural variation, which lead to a change in strand directionality readily visualised by Strand-seq. Strand-seq can hence be used to readily detect polymorphic inversions in humans and primates, including Megbase-sized events embedded in large segmental duplications known to be inaccessible to Illumina sequencing. [15] [16]

A study published online in 2019 further demonstrated that using Strand-seq, all classes of structural variation ≥200kb including deletions, duplications, inversions, inverted duplications, balanced translocations, unbalanced translocations, breakage-fusion-bridge cycle mediated complex DNA rearrangements, and chromothripsis events are sensitively detected in single cells or subclones, using single-cell tri-channel processing (scTRIP). scTRIP works via joint modelling of read-orientation, read-depth, and haplotype-phase to discover SVs in single cells. [17] Using scTRIP, structural variants are resolved by chromosome-length haplotype which confers higher sensitivity and specificity for single-cell structural variant calling than other current technologies. [17] Since scTRIP does not require reads (or read pairs) transversing the boundaries (or breakpoints) of structural variants in single cells for variant calling, it does not suffer from known artefacts of single-cell methods based on whole genome amplification (i.e. so-called read chimera) which tend to confound structural variation analysis in single cells. [17]

Haplotyping, genome assembly & generation of high-resolution human genetic variation maps

Early-build genomes are quite fragmented, with unordered and unoriented contigs. Using Strand-seq provides directionality information to accompany the sequence, which ultimately helps resolve the placement of contigs. Contigs present in the same chromosome will exhibit the same directionality, provided SCE events have not occurred. Conversely, contigs present in different chromosomes will only exhibit the same directionality in 50% of the Strand-seq libraries. [7] Scaffolds, successive contigs intersected by a gap, can be localized in the same manner. [7]

The same principle of using strand direction to distinguish large DNA molecules enables the use of Strand-seq as a tool to construct whole-chromosome haplotypes of genetic variation, from telomere to telomere. [18]

Recent reports have shown that Strand-seq can be computationally integrated with long-read sequencing technology, with the unique advantages of both technologies enabling the generation of highly contiguous haplotype-resolved de novo human genome assemblies. [8] These genomic assemblies integrate all forms of genetic variation including single nucleotide variants, indels and structural variation even across complex genomic loci, and have recently been applied to generate comprehensive haplotype-aware maps of structural variation in a diversity panel of humans from distinct ancestries. [9]

Considerations

The possibility that BrdU being substituted for thymine in the genomic DNA could induce double stranded chromosomal breaks and specifically resulting in SCEs has been previously discussed in the literature. [19] [20] Additionally, BrdU incorporation has been suggested to interfere with strand segregation patterns. [13] If this is the case, there would be an inflation in false positive SCEs which may be annotated. Therefore, many cells should be analyzed using the Strand-seq protocol to ensure that SCEs are in fact present in the population. For structural variants detected in single cells, detection of the same variant (on the same haplotype) in more than one cell can exclude BrdU incorporation as a possible cause. [17]

The number of single cell strands that need to be sequenced in order for an annotation to be accepted has yet to be proposed and is highly dependent on the questions being asked. As Strand-seq is founded on single cell sequencing techniques, one must consider the problems faced with single cell sequencing as well. These include the lacking standards for cell isolation and amplification. Even though previous Strand-seq studies isolated cells using FACS, microfluidics also serves as an attractive alternative. PCR has been shown to produce more erroneous amplification products compared to strand displacement based methods such as MDA and MALBAC, whereas the latter two techniques generate chimeric reads as a byproduct that can result in erroneous structural variation calls. [21] [17] MDA and MALBAC also generate more dropouts than Strand-seq during SV detection because they require reads that cross the breakpoint of an SV to enable its detection (this is not required for any of the different SV classes that Strand-seq can detect). [17] Strand displacement amplification also tends to generate more sequence and longer products which could be beneficial for long read sequencing technologies.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">DNA replication</span> Biological process

In molecular biology, DNA replication is the biological process of producing two identical replicas of DNA from one original DNA molecule. DNA replication occurs in all living organisms acting as the most essential part of biological inheritance. This is essential for cell division during growth and repair of damaged tissues, while it also ensures that each of the new cells receives its own copy of the DNA. The cell possesses the distinctive property of division, which makes replication of DNA essential.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chromosomal crossover</span> Cellular process

Chromosomal crossover, or crossing over, is the exchange of genetic material during sexual reproduction between two homologous chromosomes' non-sister chromatids that results in recombinant chromosomes. It is one of the final phases of genetic recombination, which occurs in the pachytene stage of prophase I of meiosis during a process called synapsis. Synapsis begins before the synaptonemal complex develops and is not completed until near the end of prophase I. Crossover usually occurs when matching regions on matching chromosomes break and then reconnect to the other chromosome.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sanger sequencing</span> Method of DNA sequencing developed in 1977

Sanger sequencing is a method of DNA sequencing that involves electrophoresis and is based on the random incorporation of chain-terminating dideoxynucleotides by DNA polymerase during in vitro DNA replication. After first being developed by Frederick Sanger and colleagues in 1977, it became the most widely used sequencing method for approximately 40 years. It was first commercialized by Applied Biosystems in 1986. More recently, higher volume Sanger sequencing has been replaced by next generation sequencing methods, especially for large-scale, automated genome analyses. However, the Sanger method remains in wide use for smaller-scale projects and for validation of deep sequencing results. It still has the advantage over short-read sequencing technologies in that it can produce DNA sequence reads of > 500 nucleotides and maintains a very low error rate with accuracies around 99.99%. Sanger sequencing is still actively being used in efforts for public health initiatives such as sequencing the spike protein from SARS-CoV-2 as well as for the surveillance of norovirus outbreaks through the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) CaliciNet surveillance network.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copy number variation</span> Repeated DNA variation between individuals

Copy number variation (CNV) is a phenomenon in which sections of the genome are repeated and the number of repeats in the genome varies between individuals. Copy number variation is a type of structural variation: specifically, it is a type of duplication or deletion event that affects a considerable number of base pairs. Approximately two-thirds of the entire human genome may be composed of repeats and 4.8–9.5% of the human genome can be classified as copy number variations. In mammals, copy number variations play an important role in generating necessary variation in the population as well as disease phenotype.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sister chromatid exchange</span>

Sister chromatid exchange (SCE) is the exchange of genetic material between two identical sister chromatids.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bivalent (genetics)</span>

A bivalent is one pair of chromosomes in a tetrad. A tetrad is the association of a pair of homologous chromosomes physically held together by at least one DNA crossover. This physical attachment allows for alignment and segregation of the homologous chromosomes in the first meiotic division. In most organisms, each replicated chromosome elicits formation of DNA double-strand breaks during the leptotene phase. These breaks are repaired by homologous recombination, that uses the homologous chromosome as a template for repair. The search for the homologous target, helped by numerous proteins collectively referred as the synaptonemal complex, cause the two homologs to pair, between the leptotene and the pachytene phases of meiosis I.

The immortal DNA strand hypothesis was proposed in 1975 by John Cairns as a mechanism for adult stem cells to minimize mutations in their genomes. This hypothesis proposes that instead of segregating their DNA during mitosis in a random manner, adult stem cells divide their DNA asymmetrically, and retain a distinct template set of DNA strands in each division. By retaining the same set of template DNA strands, adult stem cells would pass mutations arising from errors in DNA replication on to non-stem cell daughters that soon terminally differentiate. Passing on these replication errors would allow adult stem cells to reduce their rate of accumulation of mutations that could lead to serious genetic disorders such as cancer.

Chromosome segregation is the process in eukaryotes by which two sister chromatids formed as a consequence of DNA replication, or paired homologous chromosomes, separate from each other and migrate to opposite poles of the nucleus. This segregation process occurs during both mitosis and meiosis. Chromosome segregation also occurs in prokaryotes. However, in contrast to eukaryotic chromosome segregation, replication and segregation are not temporally separated. Instead segregation occurs progressively following replication.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">RNA-Seq</span> Lab technique in cellular biology

RNA-Seq is a technique that uses next-generation sequencing to reveal the presence and quantity of RNA molecules in a biological sample, providing a snapshot of gene expression in the sample, also known as transcriptome.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chromothripsis</span> Massive chromosomal rearrangement process linked to cancer

Chromothripsis is a mutational process by which up to thousands of clustered chromosomal rearrangements occur in a single event in localised and confined genomic regions in one or a few chromosomes, and is known to be involved in both cancer and congenital diseases. It occurs through one massive genomic rearrangement during a single catastrophic event in the cell's history. It is believed that for the cell to be able to withstand such a destructive event, the occurrence of such an event must be the upper limit of what a cell can tolerate and survive. The chromothripsis phenomenon opposes the conventional theory that cancer is the gradual acquisition of genomic rearrangements and somatic mutations over time.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Transmission electron microscopy DNA sequencing</span> Single-molecule sequencing technology

Transmission electron microscopy DNA sequencing is a single-molecule sequencing technology that uses transmission electron microscopy techniques. The method was conceived and developed in the 1960s and 70s, but lost favor when the extent of damage to the sample was recognized.

Massive parallel sequencing or massively parallel sequencing is any of several high-throughput approaches to DNA sequencing using the concept of massively parallel processing; it is also called next-generation sequencing (NGS) or second-generation sequencing. Some of these technologies emerged between 1993 and 1998 and have been commercially available since 2005. These technologies use miniaturized and parallelized platforms for sequencing of 1 million to 43 billion short reads per instrument run.

Genome instability refers to a high frequency of mutations within the genome of a cellular lineage. These mutations can include changes in nucleic acid sequences, chromosomal rearrangements or aneuploidy. Genome instability does occur in bacteria. In multicellular organisms genome instability is central to carcinogenesis, and in humans it is also a factor in some neurodegenerative diseases such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or the neuromuscular disease myotonic dystrophy.

De novo transcriptome assembly is the de novo sequence assembly method of creating a transcriptome without the aid of a reference genome.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Illumina dye sequencing</span> DNA sequencing method

Illumina dye sequencing is a technique used to determine the series of base pairs in DNA, also known as DNA sequencing. The reversible terminated chemistry concept was invented by Bruno Canard and Simon Sarfati at the Pasteur Institute in Paris. It was developed by Shankar Balasubramanian and David Klenerman of Cambridge University, who subsequently founded Solexa, a company later acquired by Illumina. This sequencing method is based on reversible dye-terminators that enable the identification of single nucleotides as they are washed over DNA strands. It can also be used for whole-genome and region sequencing, transcriptome analysis, metagenomics, small RNA discovery, methylation profiling, and genome-wide protein-nucleic acid interaction analysis.

Single-cell sequencing examines the nucleic acid sequence information from individual cells with optimized next-generation sequencing technologies, providing a higher resolution of cellular differences and a better understanding of the function of an individual cell in the context of its microenvironment. For example, in cancer, sequencing the DNA of individual cells can give information about mutations carried by small populations of cells. In development, sequencing the RNAs expressed by individual cells can give insight into the existence and behavior of different cell types. In microbial systems, a population of the same species can appear genetically clonal. Still, single-cell sequencing of RNA or epigenetic modifications can reveal cell-to-cell variability that may help populations rapidly adapt to survive in changing environments.

G&T-seq is a novel form of single cell sequencing technique allowing one to simultaneously obtain both transcriptomic and genomic data from single cells, allowing for direct comparison of gene expression data to its corresponding genomic data in the same cell...

BLESS, also known as breaks labeling, enrichment on streptavidin and next-generation sequencing, is a method used to detect genome-wide double-strand DNA damage. In contrast to chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP)-based methods of identifying DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) by labeling DNA repair proteins, BLESS utilizes biotinylated DNA linkers to directly label genomic DNA in situ which allows for high-specificity enrichment of samples on streptavidin beads and the subsequent sequencing-based DSB mapping to nucleotide resolution.

Circular consensus sequencing (CCS) is a DNA sequencing method that is used in conjunction with single-molecule real-time sequencing to yield highly accurate long-read sequencing datasets with read lengths averaging 15–25 kb with median accuracy greater than 99.9%. These long reads, which are created via the formation of consensus sequencing obtained from multiple passes on a single DNA molecule, can be used to improve results for complex applications such as single nucleotide and structural variant detection, genome assembly, assembly of difficult polyploid or highly repetitive genomes, and assembly of metagenomes.

Peter Michael Lansdorp is recognized for his contributions in the fields of hematology, medical genetics and cancer research. He has made significant contributions to the understanding of genome instability, particularly in relation to aging and cancer. His research has focused on the biology of blood-forming stem cells, telomeres and genome analysis. He is also known for developing techniques including single cell Strand-seq and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) techniques such as Q-FISH and flow FISH.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Falconer, Ester; Hills, Mark; Naumann, Ulrike; Poon, Steven S S; Chavez, Elizabeth A; Sanders, Ashley D; Zhao, Yongjun; Hirst, Martin; Lansdorp, Peter M (7 October 2012). "DNA template strand sequencing of single-cells maps genomic rearrangements at high resolution". Nature Methods. 9 (11): 1107–1112. doi:10.1038/nmeth.2206. PMC   3580294 . PMID   23042453.
  2. ↑ Alberts, Bruce; Johnson, Alexander; Lewis, Julian; Raff, Martin; Roberts, Keith; Walter, Peter (2002). Molecular biology of the cell (4th ed.). New York: Garland Science. ISBN   978-0-8153-3218-3.
  3. ↑ Sotiropoulou, Panagiota A.; Candi, Aurélie; Blanpain, Cédric (November 2008). "The Majority of Multipotent Epidermal Stem Cells Do Not Protect Their Genome by Asymmetrical Chromosome Segregation". Stem Cells. 26 (11): 2964–2973. doi: 10.1634/stemcells.2008-0634 . PMID   18772311.
  4. 1 2 Falconer, Ester; Chavez, Elizabeth; Henderson, Alexander; Lansdorp, Peter M (1 July 2010). "Chromosome orientation fluorescence in situ hybridization to study sister chromatid segregation in vivo". Nature Protocols. 5 (7): 1362–1377. doi:10.1038/nprot.2010.102. PMC   3771506 . PMID   20595964.
  5. ↑ Li, Heng; Durbin, Richard (2009). "Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows–Wheeler transform". Bioinformatics. 25 (14): 1754–1760. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btp324. PMC   2705234 . PMID   19451168.
  6. ↑ Langmead, Ben; Salzberg, Steven (2012). "Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2". Nature Methods. 9 (4): 357–359. doi:10.1038/nmeth.1923. PMC   3322381 . PMID   22388286.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 Hills, Mark; o’Neill, Kieran; Falconer, Ester; Brinkman, Ryan; Lansdorp, Peter M (2013). "BAIT: Organizing genomes and mapping rearrangements in single cells". Genome Medicine. 5 (9): 82. doi: 10.1186/gm486 . PMC   3971352 . PMID   24028793.
  8. 1 2 Porubsky D, Ebert P, Audano PA, Vollger MR, Harvey WT, Marijon P, Ebler J, Munson KM, Sorensen M, Sulovari A, Haukness M, Ghareghani M, Lansdorp PM, Paten B, Devine SE, Sanders AD, Lee C, Chaisson MJ, Korbel JO, Eichler EE, Marschall T (March 2021). "Fully phased human genome assembly without parental data using single-cell strand sequencing and long reads". Nat Biotechnol. 39 (3): 302–308. doi:10.1038/s41587-020-0719-5. PMC   7954704 . PMID   33288906.
  9. 1 2 Ebert P, Audano PA, Zhu Q, Rodriguez-Martin B, Porubsky D, Bonder MJ, Sulovari A, Ebler J, Zhou W, Serra Mari R, Yilmaz F, Zhao X, Hsieh P, Lee J, Kumar S, Lin J, Rausch T, Chen Y, Ren J, Santamarina M, Höps W, Ashraf H, Chuang NT, Yang X, Munson KM, Lewis AP, Fairley S, Tallon LJ, Clarke WE, Basile AO, Byrska-Bishop M, Corvelo A, Evani US, Lu TY, Chaisson MJ, Chen J, Li C, Brand H, Wenger AM, Ghareghani M, Harvey WT, Raeder B, Hasenfeld P, Regier AA, Abel HJ, Hall IM, Flicek P, Stegle O, Gerstein MB, Tubio JM, Mu Z, Li YI, Shi X, Hastie AR, Ye K, Chong Z, Sanders AD, Zody MC, Talkowski ME, Mills RE, Devine SE, Lee C, Korbel JO, Marschall T, Eichler EE (April 2021). "Haplotype-resolved diverse human genomes and integrated analysis of structural variation". Science. 372 (6537). doi:10.1126/science.abf7117. PMC   8026704 . PMID   33632895.
  10. ↑ Lansdorp, Eric; Linton, Lauren M.; Birren, Bruce; Nusbaum, Chad; Zody, Michael C.; Baldwin, Jennifer; Devon, Keri; Dewar, Ken; Doyle, Michael; Fitzhugh, William; Funke, Roel; Gage, Diane; Harris, Katrina; Heaford, Andrew; Howland, John; Kann, Lisa; Lehoczky, Jessica; Levine, Rosie; McEwan, Paul; McKernan, Kevin; Meldrim, James; Mesirov, Jill P.; Miranda, Cher; Morris, William; Naylor, Jerome; Raymond, Christina; Rosetti, Mark; Santos, Ralph; Sheridan, Andrew; et al. (2001). "Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome" (PDF). Nature. 409 (6822): 860–921. Bibcode:2001Natur.409..860L. doi: 10.1038/35057062 . PMID   11237011.
  11. ↑ Lark, K; Consigli, R; Minocha, H (1966). "Segregation of sister chromatids in mammalian cells". Science. 154 (3753): 1202–1205. Bibcode:1966Sci...154.1202L. doi:10.1126/science.154.3753.1202. PMID   5921385. S2CID   11039254.
  12. ↑ Rando, T (2007). "The Immortal Strand Hypothesis: Segregation and Reconstruction". Cell. 129 (7): 1239–1243. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2007.06.019 . PMID   17604710.
  13. 1 2 3 Falconer, Ester; Lansdorp, Peter M. (August 2013). "Strand-seq: A unifying tool for studies of chromosome segregation". Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology. 24 (8–9): 643–652. doi:10.1016/j.semcdb.2013.04.005. PMC   3791154 . PMID   23665005.
  14. ↑ Lansdorp, Peter (2007). "Immortal Strands? Give Me A Break". Cell. 129 (7): 1244–1247. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2007.06.017 . PMID   17604711.
  15. ↑ Sanders AD, Hills M, Porubský D, Guryev V, Falconer E, Lansdorp PM (November 2016). "Characterizing polymorphic inversions in human genomes by single-cell sequencing". Genome Res. 26 (11): 1575–1587. doi:10.1101/gr.201160.115. PMC   5088599 . PMID   27472961.
  16. ↑ Porubsky D, Sanders AD, Höps W, Hsieh P, Sulovari A, Li R, Mercuri L, Sorensen M, Murali SC, Gordon D, Cantsilieris S, Pollen AA, Ventura M, Antonacci F, Marschall T, Korbel JO, Eichler EE (August 2020). "Recurrent inversion toggling and great ape genome evolution". Nat Genet. 52 (8): 849–858. doi:10.1038/s41588-020-0646-x. PMC   7415573 . PMID   32541924.
  17. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sanders AD, Meiers S, Ghareghani M, Porubsky D, Jeong H, van Vliet MA, Rausch T, Richter-Pechańska P, Kunz JB, Jenni S, Bolognini D, Longo GM, Raeder B, Kinanen V, Zimmermann J, Benes V, Schrappe M, Mardin BR, Kulozik AE, Bornhauser B, Bourquin JP, Marschall T, Korbel JO (March 2020). "Single-cell analysis of structural variations and complex rearrangements with tri-channel processing" (PDF). Nat Biotechnol. 38 (3): 343–354. doi:10.1038/s41587-019-0366-x. PMC   7612647 . PMID   31873213. S2CID   209464011.
  18. ↑ Porubský D, Sanders AD, van Wietmarschen N, Falconer E, Hills M, Spierings DC, Bevova MR, Guryev V, Lansdorp PM (November 2016). "Direct chromosome-length haplotyping by single-cell sequencing". Genome Res. 26 (11): 1565–1574. doi:10.1101/gr.209841.116. PMC   5088598 . PMID   27646535.
  19. ↑ LAMBERT, BO; HANSSON, KERSTIN; LINDSTEN, JAN; STEN, MARGARETA; WERELIUS, BARBRO (12 February 2009). "Bromodeoxyuridine-induced sister chromatid exchanges in human lymphocytes". Hereditas. 83 (2): 163–173. doi:10.1111/j.1601-5223.1976.tb01582.x. PMID   61954.
  20. ↑ Latt, Samuel (1974). "Sister chromatid exchanges, indices of human chromosome damage and repair: detection by fluorescence and induction by mitomycin C". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 71 (8): 3162–3166. Bibcode:1974PNAS...71.3162L. doi: 10.1073/pnas.71.8.3162 . PMC   388642 . PMID   4137928.
  21. ↑ Blainey, Paul C. (May 2013). "The future is now: single-cell genomics of bacteria and archaea". FEMS Microbiology Reviews. 37 (3): 407–427. doi:10.1111/1574-6976.12015. PMC   3878092 . PMID   23298390.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.