4.7 Article

Copy number variant analysis of human embryonic stem cells

Journal

STEM CELLS
Volume 26, Issue 6, Pages 1484-1489

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1634/stemcells.2007-0993

Keywords

embryonic stem cells; oligonucleotide array sequence analysis; genome stability; multipoint statistics; algorithmic biology

Funding

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [P01GM081621] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [P01 GM081621] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Differences between individual DNA sequences provide the basis for human genetic variability. Forms of genetic variation include single-nucleotide polymorphisms, insertions/duplications, deletions, and inversions/translocations. The genome of human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) has been characterized mainly by karyotyping and comparative genomic hybridization (CGH), techniques whose relatively low resolution at 2-10 megabases (Mb) cannot accurately determine most copy number variability, which is estimated to involve 10%-20% of the genome. In this brief technical study, we examined HSF1 and HSF6 hESCs using array-comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) to determine copy number variants (CNVs) as a higher-resolution method for characterizing hESCs. Our approach used five samples for each hESC line and showed four consistent CNVs for HSF1 and five consistent CNVs for HSF6. These consistent CNVs included amplifications and deletions that ranged in size from 20 kilobases to 1.48 megabases, involved seven different chromosomes, were both shared and unique between hESCs, and were maintained during neuronal stem/progenitor cell differentiation or drug selection. Thirty HSF1 and 40 HSF6 less consistently scored but still highly significant candidate CNVs were also identified. Overall, aCGH provides a promising approach for uniquely identifying hESCs and their derivatives and highlights a potential genomic source for distinct differentiation and functional potentials that lower-resolution karyotype and CGH techniques could miss.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available