4.6 Article

A Quantitative Comparison of Single-Cell Whole Genome Amplification Methods

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0105585

关键词

-

资金

  1. United States Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute Emerging Technologies Opportunity Program
  2. Office of Science of the United States Department of Energy [DE-AC02-05CH11231]
  3. National Science Foundation Partnerships for International Research and Education (PIRE) [0968421]
  4. International Fulbright Science and Technology Award
  5. Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the United States Department of State
  6. Melvin and Joan Lane Stanford Graduate Fellowship
  7. Leukemia and Lymphoma Society
  8. American Society of Hematology
  9. Child Health Research Institute at Stanford
  10. Office Of The Director
  11. Office Of Internatl Science &Engineering [0968421] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Single-cell sequencing is emerging as an important tool for studies of genomic heterogeneity. Whole genome amplification (WGA) is a key step in single-cell sequencing workflows and a multitude of methods have been introduced. Here, we compare three state-of-the-art methods on both bulk and single-cell samples of E. coli DNA: Multiple Displacement Amplification (MDA), Multiple Annealing and Looping Based Amplification Cycles (MALBAC), and the PicoPLEX single-cell WGA kit (NEB-WGA). We considered the effects of reaction gain on coverage uniformity, error rates and the level of background contamination. We compared the suitability of the different WGA methods for the detection of copy-number variations, for the detection of single-nucleotide polymorphisms and for de-novo genome assembly. No single method performed best across all criteria and significant differences in characteristics were observed; the choice of which amplifier to use will depend strongly on the details of the type of question being asked in any given experiment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据