4.7 Article

Copy number variant analysis of human embryonic stem cells

期刊

STEM CELLS
卷 26, 期 6, 页码 1484-1489

出版社

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

关键词

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

资金

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

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

4.7
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