CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 98

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

High-Resolution Single-Cell DNA Methylation Measurements Reveal Epigenetically Distinct Hematopoietic Stem Cell Subpopulations

Hui, Tony, Cao, Qi, Wegrzyn-Woltosz, Joanna, O'Neill, Kieran, Hammond, Colin A., Knapp, David J.H.F., Laks, Emma, Moksa, Michelle, Aparicio, Samuel, Eaves, Connie J., Karsan, Aly, Hirst, Martin·2018·Stem Cell Reports
DOI 10.1016/j.stemcr.2018.07.003PMC PMC6093082
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

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.stemcr.2018.07.003

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Overview of Experimental Methods (A) Schematic of the phenotypes studied. (B) Schematic of the PBAL method. Cells are lysed in 96-well plates to release genomic DNA (gDNA) and then subjected to bisulfite conversion that simultaneously converts and shears the gDNA into fragments. Random hexamers are then used to regenerate double-stranded DNA that is then end-repaired, a-tailed, and ligated with indexed adapters before low-cycle PCR amplification. Libraries are then pooled and sequenced on an Illumina sequencing platform. See also Figures S1 and S2.
Figure 1 Overview of Experimental Methods (A) Schematic of the phenotypes studied. (B) Schematic of the PBAL method. Cells are lysed in 96-well plates to release genomic DNA (gDNA) and then subjected to bisulfite conversion that simultaneously converts and shears the gDNA into fragments. Random hexamers are then used to regenerate double-stranded DNA that is then end-repaired, a-tailed, and ligated with indexed adapters before low-cycle PCR amplification. Libraries are then pooled and sequenced on an Illumina sequencing platform. See also Figures S1 and S2.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Concordance Analysis of Neighboring Methylated CpGs by Their Genomic Separation (A) A schematic for how adjacency is calculated. For a randomly subsampled number of CpGs (CpG1), the concordance of methylation of 100 CpGs before and after CpG1 was recorded along with their separation. (B) Analysis of bulk versus single LSK cells across CpG sites genome wide. Curves represent the weighted average in 100-bp bins. Horizontal lines indicate the probability that two randomly sampled CpG sites have the same methylation state based on their genome-wide methylation (“baseline concordance”). Baseline concordance was calculated as the probability of sampling two methylated or two unmethylated CpGs, which is equal to the square of the average fractional methylation rate plus 1 minus the square of the average fractional methylation rate. (C) Analysis of bulk versus single cells across selected regions. For each panel, we considered only CpGs as CpG1 if they were found within each genomic feature.
Figure 2 Concordance Analysis of Neighboring Methylated CpGs by Their Genomic Separation (A) A schematic for how adjacency is calculated. For a randomly subsampled number of CpGs (CpG1), the concordance of methylation of 100 CpGs before and after CpG1 was recorded along with their separation. (B) Analysis of bulk versus single LSK cells across CpG sites genome wide. Curves represent the weighted average in 100-bp bins. Horizontal lines indicate the probability that two randomly sampled CpG sites have the same methylation state based on their genome-wide methylation (“baseline concordance”). Baseline concordance was calculated as the probability of sampling two methylated or two unmethylated CpGs, which is equal to the square of the average fractional methylation rate plus 1 minus the square of the average fractional methylation rate. (C) Analysis of bulk versus single cells across selected regions. For each panel, we considered only CpGs as CpG1 if they were found within each genomic feature.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Pairwise Analysis of Single Cells Reveals Subsets within the Murine ESLAM Phenotype (A) Schematic showing how the PD values are calculated between all paired comparisons of single cells. (B) ESLAM cells have a lower overall PD compared with LSK cells and all cell types analyzed. Every pairwise comparison between cells denoted on the x axis is summarized as a box plot with the distribution of PD values shown on the y axis. p values were calculated using a two-sided t test. (C) PDclust of CpGs associated with genes implicated in HSC function (Cabezas-Wallscheid et al., 2014) separate ESLAM and LSK cells, with some LSK cells exhibiting an ESLAM epigenetic signature. The rows and columns are symmetrical and represent single cells. The cells are shaded to represent the PD between each pair of cells, with red representing highly dissimilar and yellow representing highly similar. Meth, average genome-wide CpG methylation; cpg_count, number of distinct CpG sites recovered. (D) Same as (C) but instead considering all CpGs regardless of their genomic position. (E) Multidimensional scaling using PD calculated from (C) used directly as input. (F) MDS analysis of (D) reveals group 1 at the epicenter of single ESLAM cells with group 2 surrounding the central cluster. See also Figures S3–S5.
Figure 3 Pairwise Analysis of Single Cells Reveals Subsets within the Murine ESLAM Phenotype (A) Schematic showing how the PD values are calculated between all paired comparisons of single cells. (B) ESLAM cells have a lower overall PD compared with LSK cells and all cell types analyzed. Every pairwise comparison between cells denoted on the x axis is summarized as a box plot with the distribution of PD values shown on the y axis. p values were calculated using a two-sided t test. (C) PDclust of CpGs associated with genes implicated in HSC function (Cabezas-Wallscheid et al., 2014) separate ESLAM and LSK cells, with some LSK cells exhibiting an ESLAM epigenetic signature. The rows and columns are symmetrical and represent single cells. The cells are shaded to represent the PD between each pair of cells, with red representing highly dissimilar and yellow representing highly similar. Meth, average genome-wide CpG methylation; cpg_count, number of distinct CpG sites recovered. (D) Same as (C) but instead considering all CpGs regardless of their genomic position. (E) Multidimensional scaling using PD calculated from (C) used directly as input. (F) MDS analysis of (D) reveals group 1 at the epicenter of single ESLAM cells with group 2 surrounding the central cluster. See also Figures S3–S5.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Pairwise Dissimilarity Applied to Existing Datasets Is Able to Distinguish Cells Based on Cell Type and Treatment. (A and B) Clustering (A) and MDS scaling of PD values (B) calculated from HL60 and K562 cells (Farlik et al., 2015) separates cells by cell type, and reveals patterns of treatment-induced differentiation. Cells are shaded to represent the pairwise dissimilarity between each pair of cells, with red representing highly dissimilar and yellow representing highly similar. Meth, average genome-wide CpG methylation; cpg_count, number of distinct CpG sites recovered. (C and D) Clustering (C) and MDS scaling (D) of embryonic stem cells (Smallwood et al., 2014, Angermueller et al., 2016) separates cells by the culture medium in which they were grown, and shows some cells in a transition state.
Figure 4 Pairwise Dissimilarity Applied to Existing Datasets Is Able to Distinguish Cells Based on Cell Type and Treatment. (A and B) Clustering (A) and MDS scaling of PD values (B) calculated from HL60 and K562 cells (Farlik et al., 2015) separates cells by cell type, and reveals patterns of treatment-induced differentiation. Cells are shaded to represent the pairwise dissimilarity between each pair of cells, with red representing highly dissimilar and yellow representing highly similar. Meth, average genome-wide CpG methylation; cpg_count, number of distinct CpG sites recovered. (C and D) Clustering (C) and MDS scaling (D) of embryonic stem cells (Smallwood et al., 2014, Angermueller et al., 2016) separates cells by the culture medium in which they were grown, and shows some cells in a transition state.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Pairwise Dissimilarities of Human Hematopoietic Cells with Different Phenotypes (A) PD of CD49f and other CD34+ subsets separate cells by phenotype with some overlaps. The rows and columns are symmetrical and represent single cells. Cells are shaded to represent the PD between each pair of cells, with red representing highly dissimilar and yellow representing highly similar. (B) MDS of PD values shows that CD49f cells cluster in the middle, with GMPs, CLPs, and MLPs branching out in separate directions. (C) Single cells have lower PD values compared with cells of the same type versus cells of a different phenotype. The distribution of PD values when a cell is compared with either a cell of the same or different phenotype is plotted as a box plot. See also Figure S6.
Figure 5 Pairwise Dissimilarities of Human Hematopoietic Cells with Different Phenotypes (A) PD of CD49f and other CD34+ subsets separate cells by phenotype with some overlaps. The rows and columns are symmetrical and represent single cells. Cells are shaded to represent the PD between each pair of cells, with red representing highly dissimilar and yellow representing highly similar. (B) MDS of PD values shows that CD49f cells cluster in the middle, with GMPs, CLPs, and MLPs branching out in separate directions. (C) Single cells have lower PD values compared with cells of the same type versus cells of a different phenotype. The distribution of PD values when a cell is compared with either a cell of the same or different phenotype is plotted as a box plot. See also Figure S6.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Donor Variation in CD49f Cell Methylomes (A) Single CD49f cells still cluster by donor after removing CpGs within 200 bp of non-C and -G SNV locations. (B) MDS projection of PD values onto 2D space remains largely unchanged despite taking into account SNVs. (C) PD values as a function of comparisons versus cells either from the same or the other donor. Boxes are colored if only CpGs near SNVs, outside SNVs, or all CpGs were considered.
Figure 6 Donor Variation in CD49f Cell Methylomes (A) Single CD49f cells still cluster by donor after removing CpGs within 200 bp of non-C and -G SNV locations. (B) MDS projection of PD values onto 2D space remains largely unchanged despite taking into account SNVs. (C) PD values as a function of comparisons versus cells either from the same or the other donor. Boxes are colored if only CpGs near SNVs, outside SNVs, or all CpGs were considered.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 7 Heterogeneity within the Human CD49f Cell Compartment (A) A rare subset of CD49f cells (group 1, 11% and 9% of all CD49f cells for donors 1 and 2, respectively) cluster away from the rest of the cells after projection of PD values with MDS. (B) Distributions of surface markers obtained during index sorting of single cells belonging to cluster 1 or cluster 2, split by donor. (C) Observed over expected enrichment of DMRs. The ratios were calculated by dividing the fraction of DMRs that overlap each region set by the fraction of the genome each region set occupies. (D) Gene enrichment of DMRs that are hypomethylated in each comparison. The comparisons between group 1 and group 2 were separate from the comparisons between CD49f cells and published data for other CD34+ phenotypes. Bars are gray if their FDR-corrected binomial q value is <0.1. (E) Example of a DMR near the SERPING1 gene. Methylation values were smoothened for each population of cells with Bsmooth and plotted. Tick marks on the x axis represent the location of CpG dinucleotides. Computationally defined DMRs are highlighted in blue. The genes track shows high confidence protein-coding transcripts obtained from Gencode v75. See also Figure S7.
Figure 7 Heterogeneity within the Human CD49f Cell Compartment (A) A rare subset of CD49f cells (group 1, 11% and 9% of all CD49f cells for donors 1 and 2, respectively) cluster away from the rest of the cells after projection of PD values with MDS. (B) Distributions of surface markers obtained during index sorting of single cells belonging to cluster 1 or cluster 2, split by donor. (C) Observed over expected enrichment of DMRs. The ratios were calculated by dividing the fraction of DMRs that overlap each region set by the fraction of the genome each region set occupies. (D) Gene enrichment of DMRs that are hypomethylated in each comparison. The comparisons between group 1 and group 2 were separate from the comparisons between CD49f cells and published data for other CD34+ phenotypes. Bars are gray if their FDR-corrected binomial q value is <0.1. (E) Example of a DMR near the SERPING1 gene. Methylation values were smoothened for each population of cells with Bsmooth and plotted. Tick marks on the x axis represent the location of CpG dinucleotides. Computationally defined DMRs are highlighted in blue. The genes track shows high confidence protein-coding transcripts obtained from Gencode v75. See also Figure S7.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 10 references

Research works printed but not linked: 52

  1. Angermueller, 2016, Parallel single-cell sequencing links transcriptional and epigenetic heterogeneity, Nat. Methods, 13, 229, 10.1038/nmeth.3728 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Banet, 2000, Characterization of human and mouse H19 regulatory sequences, Mol. Biol. Rep., 27, 157, 10.1023/A:1007139713781 · DOI
  3. Barturen, 2014, MethylExtract: high-Quality methylation maps and SNV calling from whole genome bisulfite sequencing data, Version 2. F1000Res., 2, 217, 10.12688/f1000research.2-217.v2 · DOI
  4. Benz, 2012, Hematopoietic stem cell subtypes expand differentially during development and display distinct lymphopoietic programs, Cell Stem Cell, 10, 273, 10.1016/j.stem.2012.02.007 · DOI
  5. Bock, 2012, DNA methylation dynamics during in vivo differentiation of blood and skin stem cells, Mol. Cell, 47, 633, 10.1016/j.molcel.2012.06.019 · DOI
  6. Boeva, 2012, Control-FREEC: a tool for assessing copy number and allelic content using next-generation sequencing data, Bioinformatics, 28, 423, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr670 · DOI
  7. Bommarito, 2017, Effects of prenatal exposure to endocrine disruptors and toxic metals on the fetal epigenome, Epigenomics, 9, 333, 10.2217/epi-2016-0112 · DOI
  8. Brenet, 2011, DNA methylation of the first exon is tightly linked to transcriptional silencing, PLoS One, 6, e14524, 10.1371/journal.pone.0014524 · DOI
  9. Cabezas-Wallscheid, 2014, Identification of regulatory networks in HSCs and their immediate progeny via integrated proteome, transcriptome, and DNA methylome analysis, Cell Stem Cell, 15, 507, 10.1016/j.stem.2014.07.005 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Casorelli, 2006, Identification of a molecular signature for leukemic promyelocytes and their normal counterparts: focus on DNA repair genes, Leukemia, 20, 1978, 10.1038/sj.leu.2404376 · DOI
  11. Challen, 2012, Dnmt3a is essential for hematopoietic stem cell differentiation, Nat. Genet., 44, 23, 10.1038/ng.1009 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Doulatov, 2012, Hematopoiesis: a human perspective, Cell Stem Cell, 10, 120, 10.1016/j.stem.2012.01.006 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Dykstra, 2007, Long-term propagation of distinct hematopoietic differentiation programs in vivo, Cell Stem Cell, 1, 218, 10.1016/j.stem.2007.05.015 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Eaves, 2015, Hematopoietic stem cells: concepts, definitions, and the new reality, Blood, 125, 2605, 10.1182/blood-2014-12-570200 · DOI
  15. Eckhardt, 2006, DNA methylation profiling of human chromosomes 6, 20 and 22, Nat. Genet., 38, 1378, 10.1038/ng1909 · DOI
  16. Farlik, 2015, Single-cell DNA methylome sequencing and bioinformatic inference of epigenomic cell-state dynamics, Cell Rep., 10, 1386, 10.1016/j.celrep.2015.02.001 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Farlik, 2016, DNA methylation dynamics of human hematopoietic stem cell differentiation, Cell Stem Cell, 19, 808, 10.1016/j.stem.2016.10.019 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Fürst, 2012, A differentially methylated single CpG-site is correlated with estrogen receptor alpha transcription, J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol., 130, 96, 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2012.01.009 · DOI
  19. Gascard, 2015, Epigenetic and transcriptional determinants of the human breast, Nat. Commun., 6, 6351, 10.1038/ncomms7351 · DOI
  20. Gertz, 2011, Analysis of DNA methylation in a three-generation family reveals widespread genetic influence on epigenetic regulation, PLoS Genet., 7, 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002228 · DOI
  21. Hansen, 2012, BSmooth: from whole genome bisulfite sequencing reads to differentially methylated regions, Genome Biol., 13, R83, 10.1186/gb-2012-13-10-r83 · DOI
  22. Hashimoto, 2013, Regulated transcription of human matrix metalloproteinase 13 (MMP13) and interleukin-1β (IL1B) genes in chondrocytes depends on methylation of specific proximal promoter CpG sites, J. Biol. Chem., 288, 10061, 10.1074/jbc.M112.421156 · DOI
  23. Heinz, 2010, Simple combinations of lineage-determining transcription factors prime cis-regulatory elements required for macrophage and B cell identities, Mol. Cell, 38, 576, 10.1016/j.molcel.2010.05.004 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Hon, 2013, Epigenetic memory at embryonic enhancers identified in DNA methylation maps from adult mouse tissues, Nat. Genet., 45, 1198, 10.1038/ng.2746 · DOI
  25. Hu, 2016, Simultaneous profiling of transcriptome and DNA methylome from a single cell, Genome Biol., 17, 88, 10.1186/s13059-016-0950-z · DOI · Paper page
  26. Hur, 2016, CD82/KAI1 maintains the dormancy of long-term hematopoietic stem cells through interaction with DARC-expressing macrophages, Cell Stem Cell, 18, 508, 10.1016/j.stem.2016.01.013 · DOI
  27. Ivanova, 2002, A stem cell molecular signature, Science, 298, 601, 10.1126/science.1073823 · DOI
  28. Jinno, 1995, Establishment of functional imprinting of the H19 gene in human developing placentae, Nat. Genet., 10, 318, 10.1038/ng0795-318 · DOI
  29. Kent, 2009, Prospective isolation and molecular characterization of hematopoietic stem cells with durable self-renewal potential, Blood, 113, 6342, 10.1182/blood-2008-12-192054 · DOI
  30. Knapp, 2017, Dissociation of survival, proliferation, and state control in human hematopoietic stem cells, Stem Cell Rep., 8, 152, 10.1016/j.stemcr.2016.12.003 · DOI
  31. Knapp, 2018, A novel subset of human CD33+ haematopoietic stem cells characterized at single-cell resolution, Nat. Cell Biol.
  32. Lara-Astiaso, 2014, Immunogenetics. Chromatin state dynamics during blood formation, Science, 345, 943, 10.1126/science.1256271 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Laverdière, 2016, Complement cascade gene expression defines novel prognostic subgroups of acute myeloid leukemia, Exp. Hematol., 44, 1039, 10.1016/j.exphem.2016.07.012 · DOI
  34. Lorzadeh, 2016, Nucleosome density ChIP-Seq identifies distinct chromatin modification signatures associated with MNase accessibility, Cell Rep., 17, 2112, 10.1016/j.celrep.2016.10.055 · DOI
  35. Mamrut, 2013, DNA methylation of specific CpG sites in the promoter region regulates the transcription of the mouse oxytocin receptor, PLoS One, 8, e56869, 10.1371/journal.pone.0056869 · DOI
  36. Miura, 2012, Amplification-free whole-genome bisulfite sequencing by post-bisulfite adaptor tagging, Nucleic Acids Res., 40, e136, 10.1093/nar/gks454 · DOI
  37. Nile, 2008, Methylation status of a single CpG site in the IL6 promoter is related to IL6 messenger RNA levels and rheumatoid arthritis, Arthritis Rheum., 58, 2686, 10.1002/art.23758 · DOI
  38. Notta, 2011, Isolation of single human hematopoietic stem cells capable of long-term multilineage engraftment, Science, 333, 218, 10.1126/science.1201219 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Osawa, 1996, In vivo self-renewal of c-Kit+ Sca-1+ Lin(low/-) hemopoietic stem cells, J. Immunol., 156, 3207, 10.4049/jimmunol.156.9.3207 · DOI
  40. Provençal, 2015, The effects of early life stress on the epigenome: From the womb to adulthood and even before, Exp. Neurol., 268, 10, 10.1016/j.expneurol.2014.09.001 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Qu, 2016, Assessing cell-to-cell DNA methylation variability on individual long reads, Sci. Rep., 6, 21317, 10.1038/srep21317 · DOI
  42. Quinlan, 2010, BEDTools: a flexible suite of utilities for comparing genomic features, Bioinformatics, 26, 841, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq033 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Quivoron, 2011, TET2 inactivation results in pleiotropic hematopoietic abnormalities in mouse and is a recurrent event during human lymphomagenesis, Cancer Cell, 20, 25, 10.1016/j.ccr.2011.06.003 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Rishi, 2010, CpG methylation of half-CRE sequences creates C/EBP binding sites that activate some tissue-specific genes, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 107, 20311, 10.1073/pnas.1008688107 · DOI
  45. Sanjuan-Pla, 2013, Platelet-biased stem cells reside at the apex of the haematopoietic stem-cell hierarchy, Nature, 502, 232, 10.1038/nature12495 · DOI
  46. Shlush, 2017, Tracing the origins of relapse in acute myeloid leukaemia to stem cells, Nature, 547, 104, 10.1038/nature22993 · DOI
  47. Smallwood, 2014, Single-cell genome-wide bisulfite sequencing for assessing epigenetic heterogeneity, Nat. Methods, 11, 817, 10.1038/nmeth.3035 · DOI · Paper page
  48. Tsuboi, 2017, Single CpG site methylation controls estrogen receptor gene transcription and correlates with hormone therapy resistance, J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol., 171, 209, 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2017.04.001 · DOI
  49. Yamamoto, 2013, Clonal analysis unveils self-renewing lineage-restricted progenitors generated directly from hematopoietic stem cells, Cell, 154, 1112, 10.1016/j.cell.2013.08.007 · DOI
  50. Yu, 2016, Epigenetic memory underlies cell-autonomous heterogeneous behavior of hematopoietic stem cells, Cell, 167, 1310, 10.1016/j.cell.2016.10.045 · DOI
  51. Zhang, 2015, Predicting genome-wide DNA methylation using methylation marks, genomic position, and DNA regulatory elements, Genome Biol., 16, 14, 10.1186/s13059-015-0581-9 · DOI
  52. Zhou, 2017, DNA methylation of METTL7A gene body regulates its transcriptional level in thyroid cancer, Oncotarget, 8, 34652, 10.18632/oncotarget.16147 · DOI

Cited by

See all 98

Metadata

Authors
Hui, T., Cao, Q., Wegrzyn-Woltosz, J., O'Neill, K., Hammond, C. A., Knapp, D. J. H. F., Laks, E., Moksa, M., Aparicio, S., Eaves, C. J., Karsan, A., & Hirst, M.
Venue
Stem Cell Reports
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-08
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
578-592
ISSN
2213-6711
DOI
10.1016/j.stemcr.2018.07.003
PMC
PMC6093082
Cited by
98
References
10
Language
en
Licence
Funders
  • Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research (16127)
  • Canada Foundation for Innovation (31343, 31098)
  • Genome British Columbia (EP1- 120589)
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  • Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute
  • Terry Fox Research Institute (122869, 1074, 1021)
  • Lotte and John Hecht Memorial Foundation (703489)
  • Genome Canada

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: High-Resolution Single-Cell DNA Methylation Measurements Reveal Epigenetically Distinct Hematopoietic Stem Cell Subpopulations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.stemcr.2018.07.003
The paper
Hui, T., Cao, Q., Wegrzyn-Woltosz, J., O'Neill, K., Hammond, C. A., Knapp, D. J. H. F., Laks, E., Moksa, M., Aparicio, S., Eaves, C. J., Karsan, A., & Hirst, M. (2018). High-Resolution Single-Cell DNA Methylation Measurements Reveal Epigenetically Distinct Hematopoietic Stem Cell Subpopulations. Stem Cell Reports. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stemcr.2018.07.003