Cited by 112Single-cell and spatial transcriptomicsGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities

Calibrating genomic and allelic coverage bias in single-cell sequencing

Open access
Zhang, Cheng-Zhong, Adalsteinsson, Viktor A., Francis, Joshua, Cornils, Hauke, Jung, Joonil, Maire, Cecile, Ligon, Keith L., Meyerson, Matthew +1 more·2015·Nature Communications

Abstract

Artifacts introduced in whole-genome amplification (WGA) make it difficult to derive accurate genomic information from single-cell genomes and require different analytical strategies from bulk genome analysis. Here, we describe statistical methods to quantitatively assess the amplification bias resulting from whole-genome amplification of single-cell genomic DNA. Analysis of single-cell DNA libraries generated by different technologies revealed universal features of the genome coverage bias predominantly generated at the amplicon level (1–10 kb). The magnitude of coverage bias can be accurately calibrated from low-pass sequencing (∼0.1 × ) to predict the depth-of-coverage yield of single-cell DNA libraries sequenced at arbitrary depths. We further provide a benchmark comparison of single-cell libraries generated by multi-strand displacement amplification (MDA) and multiple annealing and looping-based amplification cycles (MALBAC). Finally, we develop statistical models to calibrate allelic bias in single-cell whole-genome amplification and demonstrate a census-based strategy for efficient and accurate variant detection from low-input biopsy samples. Artifacts caused by whole-genome amplification bias are a recurrent challenge in single-cell sequencing analysis. Here, the authors develop statistical models and demonstrate an efficient strategy for controlling amplification errors by a joint analysis of single cell genomes.

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 · 10.1038/ncomms7822

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?

  • MALBAC produces short amplicons (0.5-1.5 kb) compared to multiple displacement amplification (MDA) (10-50 kb amplicons).

    “MALBAC produces short amplicons (0.5–1.5kb) compared to multiple displacement amplification (MDA) (10–50 kb amplicons) (Dean et al., 2002; Zhang et al., 2015; Zong et al., 2012)”

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

  • Power spectral density analysis confirmed better uniformity of MALBAC at large genomic scales (>30 kb) and better uniformity of MDA at small genomic scales (<30 kb).

    “Power spectral density measuring amplification uniformity across all genomic scales confirmed better uniformity of MALBAC at large genomic scales (> 30 kb) and better uniformity of MDA at small genomic scales (< 30 kb) (Figure 4C) (Evrony et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2015).”

    From Resolving rates of mutation in the brain using single-neuron genomics (2016) · cites this paper as Zhang 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 36 · Cited by 112

Authors
Zhang, C.-Z., Adalsteinsson, V. A., Francis, J., Cornils, H., Jung, J., Maire, C., Ligon, K. L., Meyerson, M., & Love, J. C.
Affiliations
  • Broad Institute (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
  • Meyerson, Matthew
  • Love, J. Christopher
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2015-04-16
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
6822-6822
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2015173973
Cited by
112
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 3
FWCI
4.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (P30-CA14051)
  • National Brain Tumor Society
  • Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center
  • Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (P30-CA14051, Grant P30-CA14051)
  • National Cancer Institute (CA14051, Koch Institute Support (core) Grant P30-CA14051, U24CA143867, Grant P30-CA14051, P30CA014051, P30-CA-14051)
  • Janssen Pharmaceuticals
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Keywords
single-cell sequencing, coverage bias, allelic bias, MALBAC, low-pass sequencing, variant calling
MeSH terms
Alleles, Calibration, Cell Line, Humans, Statistics as Topic, Gene Library, Genome, Human, Bias, Polymerase Chain Reaction, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques, Genomics, Single-Cell Analysis

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