4.8 Article

Single-cell long-read sequencing in human cerebral organoids uncovers cell-type-specific and autism-associated exons

期刊

CELL REPORTS
卷 42, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2023.113335

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study used single-cell long-read sequencing to identify a large number of cell-type-specific splicing events and uncatalogued isoforms in human neural development. Retained neuronal introns were found to be enriched in RNA splicing regulators and had shorter lengths, higher GC contents, and weaker 50 splice sites. Cell-type-specific exons in autism pro-bands were found to have significantly more de novo mutations. These findings highlight the importance of cell-type-specific splicing in autism and neuronal gene regulation.
Dysregulation of alternative splicing has been repeatedly associated with neurodevelopmental disorders, but the extent of cell-type-specific splicing in human neural development remains largely uncharted. Here, single-cell long-read sequencing in induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-derived cerebral organoids identifies over 31,000 uncatalogued isoforms and 4,531 cell-type-specific splicing events. Long reads un-cover coordinated splicing and cell-type-specific intron retention events, which are challenging to study with short reads. Retained neuronal introns are enriched in RNA splicing regulators, showing shorter lengths, higher GC contents, and weaker 50 splice sites. We use this dataset to explore the biological pro-cesses underlying neurological disorders, focusing on autism. In comparison with prior transcriptomic data, we find that the splicing program in autistic brains is closer to the progenitor state than differentiated neurons. Furthermore, cell-type-specific exons harbor significantly more de novo mutations in autism pro -bands than in siblings. Overall, these results highlight the importance of cell-type-specific splicing in autism and neuronal gene regulation.

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

4.8
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