Cited by 269Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomicsCancer Genomics and Diagnostics

Cell lineage analysis in human brain using endogenous retroelements

Open access
Evrony, Gilad D., Lee, Eunjung, Mehta, Bhaven K., Benjamini, Yuval, Johnson, Robert M., Cai, Xuyu, Yang, Lixing, Haseley, Psalm +3 more·2015·Neuron

Abstract

Somatic mutations occur during brain development and are increasingly implicated as a cause of neurogenetic disease. However, the patterns in which somatic mutations distribute in the human brain are unknown. We used high-coverage whole-genome sequencing of single neurons from a normal individual to identify spontaneous somatic mutations as clonal marks to track cell lineages in human brain. Somatic mutation analyses in >30 locations throughout the nervous system identified multiple lineages and sublineages of cells marked by different LINE-1 (L1) retrotransposition events and subsequent mutation of poly-A microsatellites within L1. One clone contained thousands of cells limited to the left middle frontal gyrus, whereas a second distinct clone contained millions of cells distributed over the entire left hemisphere. These patterns mirror known somatic mutation disorders of brain development and suggest that focally distributed mutations are also prevalent in normal brains. Single-cell analysis of somatic mutation enables tracing of cell lineage clones in human brain.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.12.028

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Reanalysis of Upton et al.'s data while filtering artifacts generates a consensus that retrotransposition occurs in developing brain but at a much lower rate consistent with prior single-cell studies.

    “Reanalysis of their data while filtering these artifacts generates a consensus that retrotransposition does occur in developing brain but at a much lower rate consistent with prior single-cell studies (Evrony et al., 2012; Evrony et al., 2015), thereby constraining the range of possible functional roles for retrotransposition in the brain.”

    From Resolving rates of mutation in the brain using single-neuron genomics (2016) · cites this paper as Evrony et al., 2015

  • Upton et al. single neurons have mean MAPD scores of 0.53 ± 0.16 (SD), compared to MAPD 0.18 ± 0.06 for MALBAC-amplified single cells from Zong et al. (2012) and MAPD 0.33 ± 0.06 for MDA-amplified single neurons from Evrony et al. (2015).

    “Upton et al. single neurons have mean MAPD scores of 0.53 ± 0.16 (SD), compared to MAPD 0.18 ± 0.06 for MALBAC-amplified single cells from Zong et al. (2012) and MAPD 0.33 ± 0.06 for MDA-amplified single neurons from Evrony et al. (2015).”

    From Resolving rates of mutation in the brain using single-neuron genomics (2016) · cites this paper as Evrony et al. (2015)

  • These RC-seq somatic insertion rates are quite consistent with rates previously estimated by L1-IP in single cortical and caudate neurons (0.07 ± 0.15 SD; p = 0.54, ANOVA) and using single-neuron whole-genome sequencing (0.18 ± 0.47 SD; p = 0.37, ANOVA), suggesting a notable consensus by three methods confirming that somatic L1 insertions are present in human brain, but fewer than one per average.

    “These RC-seq somatic insertion rates are quite consistent with rates previously estimated by L1 insertion profiling (L1-IP) in single cortical and caudate neurons (0.07 ± 0.15 (SD); p = 0.54, ANOVA) (Evrony et al., 2012), and using single-neuron whole-genome sequencing (0.18 ± 0.47 (SD); p = 0.37, ANOVA) (Evrony et al., 2015), suggesting a notable consensus by three methods confirming that somatic”

    From Resolving rates of mutation in the brain using single-neuron genomics (2016) · cites this paper as Evrony et al., 2015

  • At ~500 kb genomic scales, MALBAC single cells from Zong et al. have high reproducibility and better uniformity of genome coverage than MDA.

    “Of note, at these genomic scales, MALBAC single cells from Zong et al. have high reproducibility and better uniformity of genome coverage than MDA (Figure 4B; Figure 4—figure supplement 1A–B) (Evrony et al., 2015)”

    From Resolving rates of mutation in the brain using single-neuron genomics (2016) · cites this paper as Evrony et al., 2015

  • Low-resolution genome coverage plots and statistics are minimally affected by increasing read depth >0.1x.

    “confirming as in Evrony et al. (2015) that low-resolution genome coverage plots and statistics are minimally affected by increasing read depth > 0.1x.”

    From Resolving rates of mutation in the brain using single-neuron genomics (2016) · cites this paper as Evrony et al., 2015

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 50 · Cited by 269

Authors
Evrony, G. D., Lee, E., Mehta, B. K., Benjamini, Y., Johnson, R. M., Cai, X., Yang, L., Haseley, P., Lehmann, H. S., Park, P. J., & Walsh, C. A.
Affiliations
  • Broad Institute (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
Corresponding author
  • Park, Peter J.
  • Walsh, Christopher A.
Venue
Neuron
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-01
Volume
85
Issue
1
Pages
49-59
ISSN
0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2082019169
Cited by
269
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 14
FWCI
22.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuron (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32GM007753)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS079277, R01NS032457)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P30HD018655)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Keywords
somatic mutations, lineage tracing, LINE-1 retrotransposition, endogenous retroelements, human brain development, neurogenetic disorders, single-cell genomics
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Brain, Cell Movement, Cerebral Cortex, Clone Cells, DNA Mutational Analysis, Humans, Male, Mutation, Neurons, Poly A, Polymerase Chain Reaction, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Retroelements, Microsatellite Repeats, Cell Lineage, Long Interspersed Nucleotide Elements

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review