Cited by 78Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomicsGenomics and Rare Diseases

Comparison of whole genome amplification techniques for human single cell exome sequencing

Open access
Borgström, Erik, Paterlini, Marta, Mold, Jeff E., Frisen, Jonas, Lundeberg, Joakim·2017·PLOS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Whole genome amplification (WGA) is currently a prerequisite for single cell whole genome or exome sequencing. Depending on the method used the rate of artifact formation, allelic dropout and sequence coverage over the genome may differ significantly. RESULTS: The largest difference between the evaluated protocols was observed when analyzing the target coverage and read depth distribution. These differences also had impact on the downstream variant calling. Conclusively, the products from the AMPLI1 and MALBAC kits were shown to be most similar to the bulk samples and are therefore recommended for WGA of single cells. DISCUSSION: In this study four commercial kits for WGA (AMPLI1, MALBAC, Repli-G and PicoPlex) were used to amplify human single cells. The WGA products were exome sequenced together with non-amplified bulk samples from the same source. The resulting data was evaluated in terms of genomic coverage, allelic dropout and SNP calling.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0171566

Cites

25 of 25 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?

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
Borgström, E., Paterlini, M., Mold, J. E., Frisen, J., & Lundeberg, J.
Affiliations
  • Science for Life Laboratory (SE)
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
Corresponding author
Lundeberg, Joakim
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2017-02-16
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
e0171566
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2587987600
Cited by
77
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 4
FWCI
3.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • The Swedish Cancer Society
  • European Research Council (BE)
  • Knut och Alice Wallenbergs Stiftelse (SE)
  • Vetenskapsrådet (SE)
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
  • Tobias Foundation
  • Torsten Söderbergs Stiftelse (SE)
  • StratRegen
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
Keywords
whole genome amplification, single-cell sequencing, allele dropout, variant calling, MALBAC, human cells, SNP calling
MeSH terms
Humans, Genome, Human, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques, Single-Cell Analysis, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing, Exome

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