CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 70

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

High-throughput robust single-cell DNA methylation profiling with sciMETv2

Nichols, Ruth V., O’Connell, Brendan L., Mulqueen, Ryan M., Thomas, Jerushah, Woodfin, Ashley R., Acharya, Sonia, Mandel, Gail, Pokholok, Dmitry, Steemers, Frank J., Adey, Andrew C.·2022·Nature Communications
DOI 10.1038/s41467-022-35374-3PMC PMC9734657
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

DNA methylation is a key epigenetic property that drives gene regulatory programs in development and disease. Current single-cell methods that produce high quality methylomes are expensive and low throughput without the aid of extensive automation. We previously described a proof-of-principle technique that enabled high cell throughput; however, it produced only low-coverage profiles and was a difficult protocol that required custom sequencing primers and recipes and frequently produced libraries with excessive adapter contamination. Here, we describe a greatly improved version that generates high-coverage profiles (~15-fold increase) using a robust protocol that does not require custom sequencing capabilities, includes multiple stopping points, and exhibits minimal adapter contamination. We demonstrate two versions of sciMETv2 on primary human cortex, a high coverage and rapid version, identifying distinct cell types using CH methylation patterns. These datasets are able to be directly integrated with one another as well as with existing snmC-seq2 datasets with little discernible bias. Finally, we demonstrate the ability to determine cell types using CG methylation alone, which is the dominant context for DNA methylation in most cell types other than neurons and the most applicable analysis outside of brain tissue.

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 · 10.1038/s41467-022-35374-3

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 sciMETv2 method and experimental design. a Molecular workflow for the sciMETv2 technologies. b Nucleosome disruption effectiveness as measured by raw transcription start site (TSS) enrichment. Tagmentation of intact nuclei preserves TSS enrichment which is ablated by nucleosome disruption in sciMET assays. For all boxplots, boxes indicate median, 25th and 75th percentiles with min and max lines as 1.5x interquartile range. c Experimental design for the human and mouse mixing experiments, the analysis workflow, and species alignment rates for a subset of the sequencing reads in order to determine doublet rates and identify species specific cell barcodes.
Fig. 1 sciMETv2 method and experimental design. a Molecular workflow for the sciMETv2 technologies. b Nucleosome disruption effectiveness as measured by raw transcription start site (TSS) enrichment. Tagmentation of intact nuclei preserves TSS enrichment which is ablated by nucleosome disruption in sciMET assays. For all boxplots, boxes indicate median, 25th and 75th percentiles with min and max lines as 1.5x interquartile range. c Experimental design for the human and mouse mixing experiments, the analysis workflow, and species alignment rates for a subset of the sequencing reads in order to determine doublet rates and identify species specific cell barcodes.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 sciMETv2 technical performance. a Read processing and retention for sciMETv2.LA, mean values in parentheses. b UMAP projection colored by global CH methylation levels (left) or cluster (right). c Read processing and retention for sciMETv2.SL experiments. d UMAP projection colored by global CH methylation levels (left) or cluster (right). For all boxplots, boxes indicate median, 25th and 75th percentiles with min and max lines as 1.5x interquartile range.
Fig. 2 sciMETv2 technical performance. a Read processing and retention for sciMETv2.LA, mean values in parentheses. b UMAP projection colored by global CH methylation levels (left) or cluster (right). c Read processing and retention for sciMETv2.SL experiments. d UMAP projection colored by global CH methylation levels (left) or cluster (right). For all boxplots, boxes indicate median, 25th and 75th percentiles with min and max lines as 1.5x interquartile range.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 sciMETv2 splint ligation optimization and performance. a Read processing and retention broken down by the three splint designs in the variable splint sciMETv2.SL experiment. For all boxplots, boxes indicate median, 25th and 75th percentiles with min and max lines as 1.5x interquartile range. b UMAP colored by variable splint (left) and composition of clusters by splint and splint by clusters (right). c Cumulative coverage from sampled cells for each method over 100 iterations. Mean values for iterations (left) are shown and include two down sampled variants of the sciMETv2.LA dataset to match the raw read count of the sciMETv2.SL datasets using the H10 (LA, SL-H10 ds.) or N7 (LA, SL-N7 ds.) splints. The distribution of coverage across iterations is shown for the LA, SL-H10 ds. and the SL-H10 datasets (right).
Fig. 3 sciMETv2 splint ligation optimization and performance. a Read processing and retention broken down by the three splint designs in the variable splint sciMETv2.SL experiment. For all boxplots, boxes indicate median, 25th and 75th percentiles with min and max lines as 1.5x interquartile range. b UMAP colored by variable splint (left) and composition of clusters by splint and splint by clusters (right). c Cumulative coverage from sampled cells for each method over 100 iterations. Mean values for iterations (left) are shown and include two down sampled variants of the sciMETv2.LA dataset to match the raw read count of the sciMETv2.SL datasets using the H10 (LA, SL-H10 ds.) or N7 (LA, SL-N7 ds.) splints. The distribution of coverage across iterations is shown for the LA, SL-H10 ds. and the SL-H10 datasets (right).CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 sciMETv2 cell type analysis and method bias assessment. a UMAP projection of the three sciMETv2 preparations integrated together colored by cluster. b Global CH methylation levels per cell in the UMAP projection (left) and by cluster (right). For all boxplots, boxes indicate median, 25th and 75th percentiles with min and max lines as 1.5x interquartile range. c Promoter CG methylation levels of marker genes for cell-type-aggregated clusters (left) and both promoter CG methylation and gene body CH methylation for neuronal marker genes and subtype markers. Dashed lines represent clusters showing evidence of positive gene regulation for excitatory (top) or inhibitory (bottom) marker genes.
Fig. 4 sciMETv2 cell type analysis and method bias assessment. a UMAP projection of the three sciMETv2 preparations integrated together colored by cluster. b Global CH methylation levels per cell in the UMAP projection (left) and by cluster (right). For all boxplots, boxes indicate median, 25th and 75th percentiles with min and max lines as 1.5x interquartile range. c Promoter CG methylation levels of marker genes for cell-type-aggregated clusters (left) and both promoter CG methylation and gene body CH methylation for neuronal marker genes and subtype markers. Dashed lines represent clusters showing evidence of positive gene regulation for excitatory (top) or inhibitory (bottom) marker genes.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 5 Cell-cell variability and motif analysis of sciMETv2 data. a Cell-cell variability as measured by all-by-all methylation similarity at promoter CG sites within each cluster (top), and the mean similarity for cells of different cell types represented as a heatmap (bottom). For all boxplots, boxes indicate median, 25th and 75th percentiles with min and max lines as 1.5x interquartile range. b Assessment of cell-type-specific methylation patterns for CG (left) and CH (right) centered on motifs for CTCF (top) and REST (RE1, bottom). Reduced CG methylation at RE1 sites in glial cell populations is noted.
Fig. 5 Cell-cell variability and motif analysis of sciMETv2 data. a Cell-cell variability as measured by all-by-all methylation similarity at promoter CG sites within each cluster (top), and the mean similarity for cells of different cell types represented as a heatmap (bottom). For all boxplots, boxes indicate median, 25th and 75th percentiles with min and max lines as 1.5x interquartile range. b Assessment of cell-type-specific methylation patterns for CG (left) and CH (right) centered on motifs for CTCF (top) and REST (RE1, bottom). Reduced CG methylation at RE1 sites in glial cell populations is noted.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 6 Assessment of bias between experiments and technologies. a Integrated UMAP colored by sciMETv2 experiment (left) and the cluster breakdown for each experiment as well as experiment breakdown for each cluster (right). b Integration with human frontal cortex snmC-seq2 data projected into a UMAP and colored by assay (left), and by clusters (middle, non-neuron clusters are grayed out), with the cluster composition of each method (right). c Integration with a sciMETv2.LA dataset produced using three sets of 96 indexes at the tagmentation step performed on a different individual. Cells from each method were present in each cluster, though greater counts of glial cells were observed in the new preparation.
Fig. 6 Assessment of bias between experiments and technologies. a Integrated UMAP colored by sciMETv2 experiment (left) and the cluster breakdown for each experiment as well as experiment breakdown for each cluster (right). b Integration with human frontal cortex snmC-seq2 data projected into a UMAP and colored by assay (left), and by clusters (middle, non-neuron clusters are grayed out), with the cluster composition of each method (right). c Integration with a sciMETv2.LA dataset produced using three sets of 96 indexes at the tagmentation step performed on a different individual. Cells from each method were present in each cluster, though greater counts of glial cells were observed in the new preparation.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 7 Analysis of sciMETv2 datasets using CG methylation alone. a UMAP projections colored by cluster for each sciMETv2 experiment when analyzed using CG methylation alone and for the integrated sciMETv2 dataset processed (right). b CG based UMAP on the integrated dataset as in a, with cells colored by CH methylation clusters that were previously determined and a confusion matrix comparing the CG (y-axis) and CH (x-axis) cluster identities.
Fig. 7 Analysis of sciMETv2 datasets using CG methylation alone. a UMAP projections colored by cluster for each sciMETv2 experiment when analyzed using CG methylation alone and for the integrated sciMETv2 dataset processed (right). b CG based UMAP on the integrated dataset as in a, with cells colored by CH methylation clusters that were previously determined and a confusion matrix comparing the CG (y-axis) and CH (x-axis) cluster identities.CC BY · 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 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. Smallwood, S. A. et al. Single-cell genome-wide bisulfite sequencing for assessing epigenetic heterogeneity. Nat. Methods 11, 817–820 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  2. Farlik, M. et al. Single-cell DNA methylome sequencing and bioinformatic inference of epigenomic cell-state dynamics. Cell Rep. 10, 1386–1397 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  3. Hui, T. et al. High-resolution single-cell DNA methylation measurements reveal epigenetically distinct hematopoietic stem cell subpopulations. Stem Cell Rep. 11, 578–592 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  4. Raine, A. et al. scSPLAT, a scalable plate-based protocol for single cell WGBS library preparation. Sci. Rep. 12, 5772 (2022). · DOI
  5. Kobayashi, H. et al. Repetitive DNA methylome analysis by small-scale and single-cell shotgun bisulfite sequencing. Genes Cells 21, 1209–1222 (2016). · DOI
  6. Miura, F., Enomoto, Y., Dairiki, R. & Ito, T. Amplification-free whole-genome bisulfite sequencing by post-bisulfite adaptor tagging. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, e136 (2012). · DOI
  7. Mulqueen, R. M. et al. High-content single-cell combinatorial indexing. Nat. Biotechnol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-021-00962-z (2021). · DOI
  8. Kapp, J. D., Green, R. E. & Shapiro, B. A fast and efficient single-stranded genomic library preparation method optimized for ancient DNA. J. Hered. 112, 241–249 (2021). · DOI
  9. Dixon, J. R. et al. Topological domains in mammalian genomes identified by analysis of chromatin interactions. Nature 485, 376–380 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  10. Chong, J. A. et al. REST: A mammalian silencer protein that restricts sodium channel gene expression to neurons. Cell 80, 949–957 (1995). · DOI · Paper page
  11. Lister, R. et al. Human DNA methylomes at base resolution show widespread epigenomic differences. Nature 462, 315–322 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  12. Thornton, C. A. et al. Spatially mapped single-cell chromatin accessibility. Nat. Commun. 12, 1274 (2021). · DOI
  13. Bolger, A. M., Lohse, M. & Usadel, B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30, 2114 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  14. Krueger, F. & Andrews, S. R. Bismark: A flexible aligner and methylation caller for Bisulfite-Seq applications. Bioinformatics 27, 1571–1572 (2011). · DOI
  15. Sinnamon, J. R. et al. The accessible chromatin landscape of the murine hippocampus at single-cell resolution. Genome Res 29, 857–869 (2019). · DOI
  16. Martin, M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet. J. 17, 10–12 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  17. Levine, J. H. et al. Data-driven phenotypic dissection of AML reveals progenitor-like cells that correlate with prognosis. Cell 162, 184–197 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  18. Becht, E. et al. Dimensionality reduction for visualizing single-cell data using UMAP. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 38–44 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  19. Heinz, S. et al. Simple combinations of lineage-determining transcription factors prime cis-regulatory elements required for macrophage and B cell identities. Mol. Cell 38, 576–589 (2010). · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Nichols, R. V., O’Connell, B. L., Mulqueen, R. M., Thomas, J., Woodfin, A. R., Acharya, S., Mandel, G., Pokholok, D., Steemers, F. J., & Adey, A. C.
Venue
Nature Communications
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-12-09
Volume
13
Issue
1
ISSN
2041-1723
DOI
10.1038/s41467-022-35374-3
PMC
PMC9734657
Cited by
70
References
5
Language
en
Licence
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute of Mental Health (RF1MH128842)
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R35GM124704)

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