Cited by 1,125Epigenetics and DNA MethylationSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomicsGenetic Syndromes and Imprinting

Single-cell genome-wide bisulfite sequencing for assessing epigenetic heterogeneity

Open access
Smallwood, Sébastien A, Lee, Heather J, Angermueller, Christof, Krueger, Felix, Saadeh, Heba, Peat, Julian, Andrews, Simon R, Stegle, Oliver +2 more·2014·Nature Methods

Abstract

We report a single-cell bisulfite sequencing (scBS-seq) method that can be used to accurately measure DNA methylation at up to 48.4% of CpG sites. Embryonic stem cells grown in serum or in 2i medium displayed epigenetic heterogeneity, with '2i-like' cells present in serum culture. Integration of 12 individual mouse oocyte datasets largely recapitulated the whole DNA methylome, which makes scBS-seq a versatile tool to explore DNA methylation in rare cells and heterogeneous populations.

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/nmeth.3035

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Regions with active enhancer marks have a high variance in DNA methylation between single cells.

    “showing that regions with active enhancer marks have a high variance in DNA methylation between single cells [73]”

    From Mapping gene regulatory networks from single-cell omics data (2018) · cites this paper as [73]

  • Differences between sc-methylation approaches can be because of technical dropouts, variation in detection power (scRRBS detects 10% of CpG sites, scBS-seq up to 48%) and different analysis approaches.

    “Differences can be because of (different levels of) technical dropouts, variation in detection power (e.g. scRRBS is able to detect 10% of CpG sites [68], whereas scBS-seq can detect up to 48% [73]) and different analysis approaches.”

    From Mapping gene regulatory networks from single-cell omics data (2018) · cites this paper as [73]

  • DNA methylation can be measured in single cells by plate-based sorting of individual nuclei, followed by bisulfite conversion and multiplexed sequencing, capturing up to ~30% of genome per cell.

    “DNA methylation can be measured in single cells by plate-based sorting of individual nuclei, followed by bisulfite conversion of DNA and multiplexed sequencing (Luo et al., 2017; Mulqueen et al., 2018; Smallwood et al., 2014), capturing up to ~30% of the genome per cell (Luo et al., 2018a).”

    From Single-Cell Sequencing of Brain Cell Transcriptomes and Epigenomes (2021) · cites this paper as Smallwood et al., 2014

  • Single-cell omics techniques are particularly apposite for developmental biology.

    “Recently developed single‐cell ‐omics techniques (Tang et al, 2009; Smallwood et al, 2014; Buenrostro et al, 2015b; Heath et al, 2016), by contrast, are particularly apposite for developmental biology, transferring high‐throughput molecular techniques onto the correct scale for understanding cellular decision‐making.”
  • scM&T-seq was the first WGBS-based multi-omics method; it used G&T-seq and scBS-seq to assess methylation heterogeneity and Smart-seq2 to obtain RNA data together with genome-wide methylation.

    “The first method of WGBS multi-omics, single-cell genome-wide methylome and transcriptome sequencing (scM&T-seq)28, borrowed already-established single-omics techniques from G&T-seq21 and scBS-seq26 to measure DNA methylation heterogeneity in single cells, combined with Smart-seq2 to generate transcriptional data concurrently with genome-wide methylation data.”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smallwood, S. A., Lee, H. J., Angermueller, C., Krueger, F., Saadeh, H., Peat, J., Andrews, S. R., Stegle, O., Reik, W., & Kelsey, G.
Affiliations
  • Babraham Institute (GB)
  • European Bioinformatics Institute (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Reik, Wolf
  • Kelsey, Gavin
Venue
Nature Methods
Published
2014-07-20
Volume
11
Issue
8
Pages
817-820
ISSN
  • 1548-7091 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-7105
OpenAlex
W2070339716
Cited by
1,125
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 50 · 2025: 75 · 2024: 119 · 2023: 102 · 2022: 97 · 2021: 111 · 2020: 102 · 2019: 102 · 2018: 98 · 2017: 112 · 2016: 78 · 2015: 64 · 2014: 14
FWCI
36.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion)
  • Apollo
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (095645/Z/11/Z, 095645)
  • Medical Research Council (MR/K011332/1)
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBS/E/B/000C0400, BB/J004499/1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Syndromes and Imprinting
Keywords
single-cell bisulfite sequencing, DNA methylation, epigenetic heterogeneity, embryonic stem cells, mouse oocytes, methylome, rare cell populations
MeSH terms
Animals, Sulfites, Genome, DNA Methylation, Epigenesis, Genetic, Mice

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