Literature DB >> 26719794

Single-molecule optical genome mapping of a human HapMap and a colorectal cancer cell line.

Audrey S M Teo1, Davide Verzotto2, Fei Yao1, Niranjan Nagarajan2, Axel M Hillmer1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies have changed our understanding of the variability of the human genome. However, the identification of genome structural variations based on NGS approaches with read lengths of 35-300 bases remains a challenge. Single-molecule optical mapping technologies allow the analysis of DNA molecules of up to 2 Mb and as such are suitable for the identification of large-scale genome structural variations, and for de novo genome assemblies when combined with short-read NGS data. Here we present optical mapping data for two human genomes: the HapMap cell line GM12878 and the colorectal cancer cell line HCT116.
FINDINGS: High molecular weight DNA was obtained by embedding GM12878 and HCT116 cells, respectively, in agarose plugs, followed by DNA extraction under mild conditions. Genomic DNA was digested with KpnI and 310,000 and 296,000 DNA molecules (≥ 150 kb and 10 restriction fragments), respectively, were analyzed per cell line using the Argus optical mapping system. Maps were aligned to the human reference by OPTIMA, a new glocal alignment method. Genome coverage of 6.8× and 5.7× was obtained, respectively; 2.9× and 1.7× more than the coverage obtained with previously available software.
CONCLUSIONS: Optical mapping allows the resolution of large-scale structural variations of the genome, and the scaffold extension of NGS-based de novo assemblies. OPTIMA is an efficient new alignment method; our optical mapping data provide a resource for genome structure analyses of the human HapMap reference cell line GM12878, and the colorectal cancer cell line HCT116.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cancer genome; Genome structure; Genomic mapping; Optical mapping; Single-molecule restriction mapping

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26719794      PMCID: PMC4696294          DOI: 10.1186/s13742-015-0106-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gigascience        ISSN: 2047-217X            Impact factor:   6.524


Data description

The analysis of human genome next-generation sequencing (NGS) data largely focuses on the detection of single nucleotide variants (SNVs), and insertions and deletions of a few base pairs (indels). Larger genome structural variations (SVs) that can result in copy number variations (CNVs) affect up to 13 % of the human genome [1]. However, the detection of SVs, in particular of copy number neutral events such as inversions, 'cut and paste' insertions, or balanced translocations through NGS analysis is less straightforward [2]. A particular problem lies in the short read length of 35–300 bases of the most commonly used NGS approaches, which does not, in many cases, allow unambiguous mapping of the respective reads to the human reference genome. This is relevant since transposable elements with their sequence similarities account for a large proportion of SVs in the human genome [3], and rearrangement points tend to occur in repetitive sequences [4]. In contrast, single-molecule optical mapping technologies label large DNA fragments of up to 2 Mb that allow the identification of large SVs and de novo assembly of genomes [5-9]. The length of single DNA molecules provides a higher sensitivity for the identification of large SVs with rearrangement points within repetitive sequences compared to standard NGS approaches. Optical mapping is a light microscope-based technique for constructing ordered physical maps of restriction enzyme recognition sites across a genome. It has been applied to characterize the structure of the human genome [8-10] but only a small fraction of the raw optical maps is usually used for mapping. We aimed to improve the efficacy of data analysis to allow greater scalability of this approach. Here we present optical mapping data for two human genomes: the HapMap cell line GM12878, and the colorectal cancer cell line HCT116. High molecular weight (HMW) DNA was extracted from the human cell lines GM12878 and HCT116 as follows. Cells were embedded in agarose plugs at a concentration of approximately 107 cells/ml by mixing a cell suspension in phosphate buffered saline (PBS) with a 1 % low melting point agarosePBS solution, dispensing the mixture into plug molds (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc.) and allowing the plugs to solidify completely. Cell lysis within the agarose plugs was performed by immersing the plugs in 5 ml of lysis buffer (0.5 M EDTA, pH 9.5; 1 % lauroyl sarcosine, sodium salt; proteinase K, 2 mg/ml) at 50 °C for 2 days, with gentle agitation and a change of lysis buffer in between. The plugs were then washed three times with 45 ml of 1X TE buffer (pH 8.0) per wash with gentle rocking. The DNA that remained immobilized within the agarose plugs was released by melting the agarose at 70 °C for 7 min, followed by incubation with β-agarase in 1X TE buffer (pH 8.0) at 42 °C overnight. Argus 10X Loading Buffer (OpGen Inc) was added to the sample (to approximately 1X concentration), and incubated overnight at room temperature. The HMW DNA was further diluted in Argus Dilution Buffer (OpGen Inc) and incubated overnight at 37 °C before determining the DNA length and concentration on Argus QCards (OpGen Inc). Argus MapCards were assembled following the manufacturer’s protocol, using Argus consumables and reagents (OpGen Inc). HMW DNA prepared as described above was allowed to flow through a high density channel-forming device (CFD), which was placed on an Argus MapCard surface attached to an Argus MapCard II. This resulted in single DNA molecules being stretched and immobilized on the surface. The CFD was removed, a cap was placed over the DNA, and reagents (antifade, buffer, enzyme, stain) were loaded into the MapCard reservoirs. The assembled MapCard was placed in the Argus MapCard Processor where digestion with KpnI enzyme (Table 1) and staining of DNA molecules occurred in an automated process. The MapCard was removed from the Argus Mapcard Processor and sealed, then placed in the Argus Optical Mapper and set up for automatic data collection as described previously [5]. Argus Mapper was used to image DNA molecules and corresponding restriction fragments by fluorescence microscopy (Fig. 1). The Argus System merged images into channel images and labeled DNA molecules of 150 kb to 2 Mb. Restriction enzyme cut sites were detected as gaps in linear DNA molecules, and the size of each restriction fragment between adjacent cut sites was determined. The Mapper filtered out non-linear distorted fragments and small molecules, identified gaps between fragments, and measured the size of retained high quality fragments. Data from DNA molecules with at least 10 fragments and quality scores of 0.2 were collected from 4 and 6 MapCards for GM12878 and HCT116 cell lines, respectively.
Table 1

In silico analysis of restriction enzyme cutting statistics for the human reference genome (hg19)

EnzymeUsable DNA fragments (%)Average fragment size (kb)Maximum fragment size (kb)#Fragments >100 kb
5–20 kb6–15 kb6–12 kb
AflII13.35.485.434.47143.964
BamHI99.2292.9592.97.92153.9221
Kpn I 99.95 99.88 99.51 9.98 171.76 65
NcoI0.080.030.033.81164.182
NheI99.8698.9790.7510.23204.7588
SpeI99.2896.7194.557.27311.48101
BglII2.330.810.83.71109.691
EcoRI2.210.790.793.6786.140
MluI0.340.010.01135.322276.598295
NdeI5.91.781.783.19105.861
PvuII0.030.020.022.66173.766
XbaI2.751.151.153.58146.272
XhoI17.026.372.2123.78430.883269

To select the restriction enzyme that cuts the human genome to maximize the fraction of fragments resulting in informative maps, the human genome was cut in silico with 13 commonly used restriction enzymes based on their canonical cutting sites. Usable restriction fragment sizes were defined as 5–20 kb, 6–15 kb, and 6–12 kb, since smaller DNA fragments do not allow accurate size estimates, and longer fragments can result in maps with too few fragments. KpnI was selected based on its high fraction of usable DNA fragments (highlighted in bold)

Fig. 1

Representative optical map of GM12878. DNA molecules were stretched and immobilized onto a glass MapCard surface with the aid of a channel-forming device, cut by KpnI, stained, and visualized by fluorescence imaging. Interrupted linear stretches indicate DNA digested by KpnI. Whirly, non-linear, short, and disjointed DNA molecules are filtered out by the image processing software

In silico analysis of restriction enzyme cutting statistics for the human reference genome (hg19) To select the restriction enzyme that cuts the human genome to maximize the fraction of fragments resulting in informative maps, the human genome was cut in silico with 13 commonly used restriction enzymes based on their canonical cutting sites. Usable restriction fragment sizes were defined as 5–20 kb, 6–15 kb, and 6–12 kb, since smaller DNA fragments do not allow accurate size estimates, and longer fragments can result in maps with too few fragments. KpnI was selected based on its high fraction of usable DNA fragments (highlighted in bold) Representative optical map of GM12878. DNA molecules were stretched and immobilized onto a glass MapCard surface with the aid of a channel-forming device, cut by KpnI, stained, and visualized by fluorescence imaging. Interrupted linear stretches indicate DNA digested by KpnI. Whirly, non-linear, short, and disjointed DNA molecules are filtered out by the image processing software We obtained 309,879 and 296,217 maps (fragmented DNA molecules) for GM12878 and HCT116, respectively; these had ≥10 fragments and were ≥150 kb in length (Tables 2 and 3), and were used as inputs for alignment by OPTIMA [11-13]. These criteria are more inclusive compared to the default parameters for alignment by the state-of-the-art algorithm Gentig v.2 (OpGen Inc) [5, 14]. MapCard output for maps with these criteria ranged between 3,744 and 93,896 maps. Average fragment sizes were 16.4 kb for GM12878, and 15.7 kb for HCT116. OPTIMA allowed alignment of 20.9 and 18.1 % of maps with these criteria, significantly more than by using Gentig [12]. Average digestion rates were estimated to be 0.66 and 0.691 (cuts), and extra-cutting rates were estimated to be 0.751 and 0.774 cuts per 100 kb for GM12878 and HCT116, respectively.
Table 2

Summary of MapCard statistics of GM12878

MapCard IDFaInput mapsb (theoretical genome coverage)Average Argus quality scoreAverage DNA molecule size (kb)Average # of fragmentsAverage fragment size (kb)OPTIMA alignment rateYield (genome coverage)cAverage digestion ratecAverage false/ extra cut ratecRatio small missing fragments (≤2 kb)c
21157LB(r)73365 (7.2×)0.502951816.50.2532.0×0.6590.7360.139
(s)38483 (4.7×)0.533682217.00.3571.7×0.6500.7330.133
21159LB(r)75761 (7.6×)0.473001717.40.1901.6×0.6280.7230.129
(s)41236 (5.1×)0.503702117.80.2681.3×0.6180.7180.124
21431LB(r)93896 (8.6×)0.522741715.80.2001.9×0.6760.7730.187
(s)43667 (5.1×)0.543482116.30.3031.5×0.6650.7680.184
21443LB(r)66857 (6×)0.512711715.80.1921.3×0.6740.7710.175
(s)29991 (3.5×)0.533462116.30.2921.0×0.6610.7720.168
Total(r)309879 (29.4×)0.502851716.40.2096.8×0.6600.7510.158
(s)153377 (18.3×)0.523592116.90.3105.5×0.6490.7470.152

ar: inclusion of DNA molecules with ≥10 fragments and ≥150 kb in length; s: inclusion of DNA molecules with ≥12 fragments and ≥250 kb in length

bfragmented DNA molecules

cof OPTIMA aligned data

Table 3

Summary of MapCard statistics of HCT116

MapCard IDFaInput mapsb (theoretical genome coverage)Average Argus quality scoreAverage DNA molecule size (kb)Average # of fragmentsAverage fragment size (kb)OPTIMA alignment rateYield (genome coverage)cAverage digestion ratecAverage false/ extra cut ratecRatio small missing fragments (≤2 kb)c
17182LA(r)10911 (0.9×)0.332571615.70.0400.04×0.6611.2880.170
(s)3744 (0.4×)0.333512017.70.0400.02×0.6281.2260.190
17184LA-2(r)55719 (5.7×)0.433051916.30.1801.1×0.6780.7600.197
(s)28658 (3.7×)0.453902317.20.2500.9×0.6690.7370.199
17185LA(r)56879 (5.4×)0.552851914.70.2401.5×0.7050.7560.219
(s)28003 (3.4×)0.593652415.10.3521.2×0.6960.7390.217
17186LA-3(r)52984 (5.8×)0.543282016.00.3272.0×0.6960.6770.167
(s)31588 (4.3×)0.564042516.40.4231.7×0.6880.6710.163
17187LA(r)88730 (7.8×)0.452641814.80.1151.0×0.6920.9400.195
(s)36018 (4.2×)0.463492215.80.1710.7×0.6780.9190.188
14593LB(r)30994 (2.7×)0.392611418.90.0590.2×0.6260.8470.161
(s)10944 (1.2×)0.393371720.20.0860.1×0.5970.8690.151
Total(r)296217 (28.3×)0.472871815.70.1815.7×0.6910.7740.191
(s)138955 (17.2×)0.503722316.50.2714.6×0.6820.7490.188

ar: inclusion of DNA molecules with ≥10 fragments and ≥150 kb in length; s: inclusion of DNA molecules with ≥12 fragments and ≥250 kb in length

bfragmented DNA molecules

cof OPTIMA aligned data

Summary of MapCard statistics of GM12878 ar: inclusion of DNA molecules with ≥10 fragments and ≥150 kb in length; s: inclusion of DNA molecules with ≥12 fragments and ≥250 kb in length bfragmented DNA molecules cof OPTIMA aligned data Summary of MapCard statistics of HCT116 ar: inclusion of DNA molecules with ≥10 fragments and ≥150 kb in length; s: inclusion of DNA molecules with ≥12 fragments and ≥250 kb in length bfragmented DNA molecules cof OPTIMA aligned data Although enzyme selection, data filtering protocols and alignment methods greatly influence data metrics, we compared our data with an optical mapping study of two human cancer genomes (Ray and colleagues; [8]). The average DNA molecule size of our GM12878 and HCT116 maps with ≥12 fragments and ≥250 kb in length were 359 and 372 kb, respectively. The Ray et al. data had average DNA molecule sizes of 434 and 421 kb, respectively. The aligned coverage of the human genome for GM12878 and HCT116 was 5.5× and 4.6×, respectively, while the Ray et al. data gave 37× and 25× coverage. Estimated digestion rates were 65 and 68 % with KpnI for GM12878 and HCT116, respectively, while digestion rates were 83 and 82 % with SwaI for the Ray et al. data. For GM12878 and HCT116 we estimated 0.747 and 0.749 extra cuts per 100 kb, respectively, while the data of Ray et al. showed 0.168 and 0.233 extra cuts per 100 kb. While GM12878 has been analyzed by paired-end sequencing [15], resolving the genome structure is restricted by the limitations of short-read sequencing. The data presented here is a resource to define the genome structure of this HapMap cell line, as well as that of HCT116, a commonly used colorectal cancer cell line. Cancer genomes are known to be rearranged to various extents. The interpretation of epigenetic alterations and mutations in non-coding but regulatory regions of the genome will only be accurate if they are seen in the correct genomic context, i.e. in the sample-specific genome structure. This requires methodologies like single-molecule optical mapping to resolve the genome structure beyond what is possible with short-read NGS data.

Availability and requirements of software used

OPTIMA can be downloaded from GigaScience DB [13] at http://dx.doi.org/10.5524/100165 and at http://www.davideverzotto.it/research/OPTIMA. The software requirements are Oracle Java SE Development Kit 7+, Apache Commons Math 3.2 JAR library, and CERN Colt 1.2.0 JAR library.

Availability of supporting data and materials

The datasets supporting the results of this Data Note are available in the GigaScience repository, GigaDB [16]. Also, the supporting material for the OPTIMA tool used for alignment of data in this paper can be found in GigaDB [13].
  13 in total

1.  Genomics via optical mapping. II: Ordered restriction maps.

Authors:  T S Anantharaman; B Mishra; D C Schwartz
Journal:  J Comput Biol       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 1.479

2.  Recurrent Fusion Genes in Gastric Cancer: CLDN18-ARHGAP26 Induces Loss of Epithelial Integrity.

Authors:  Fei Yao; Jaya P Kausalya; Yee Yen Sia; Audrey S M Teo; Wah Heng Lee; Alicia G M Ong; Zhenshui Zhang; Joanna H J Tan; Guoliang Li; Denis Bertrand; Xingliang Liu; Huay Mei Poh; Peiyong Guan; Feng Zhu; Thushangi Nadeera Pathiraja; Pramila N Ariyaratne; Jaideepraj Rao; Xing Yi Woo; Shaojiang Cai; Fabianus H Mulawadi; Wan Ting Poh; Lavanya Veeravalli; Chee Seng Chan; Seong Soo Lim; See Ting Leong; Say Chuan Neo; Poh Sum D Choi; Elaine G Y Chew; Niranjan Nagarajan; Pierre-Étienne Jacques; Jimmy B Y So; Xiaoan Ruan; Khay Guan Yeoh; Patrick Tan; Wing-Kin Sung; Walter Hunziker; Yijun Ruan; Axel M Hillmer
Journal:  Cell Rep       Date:  2015-07-02       Impact factor: 9.423

3.  A large and complex structural polymorphism at 16p12.1 underlies microdeletion disease risk.

Authors:  Francesca Antonacci; Jeffrey M Kidd; Tomas Marques-Bonet; Brian Teague; Mario Ventura; Santhosh Girirajan; Can Alkan; Catarina D Campbell; Laura Vives; Maika Malig; Jill A Rosenfeld; Blake C Ballif; Lisa G Shaffer; Tina A Graves; Richard K Wilson; David C Schwartz; Evan E Eichler
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2010-08-22       Impact factor: 38.330

4.  Origins and functional impact of copy number variation in the human genome.

Authors:  Donald F Conrad; Dalila Pinto; Richard Redon; Lars Feuk; Omer Gokcumen; Yujun Zhang; Jan Aerts; T Daniel Andrews; Chris Barnes; Peter Campbell; Tomas Fitzgerald; Min Hu; Chun Hwa Ihm; Kati Kristiansson; Daniel G Macarthur; Jeffrey R Macdonald; Ifejinelo Onyiah; Andy Wing Chun Pang; Sam Robson; Kathy Stirrups; Armand Valsesia; Klaudia Walter; John Wei; Chris Tyler-Smith; Nigel P Carter; Charles Lee; Stephen W Scherer; Matthew E Hurles
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2009-10-07       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  Sequencing and automated whole-genome optical mapping of the genome of a domestic goat (Capra hircus).

Authors:  Yang Dong; Min Xie; Yu Jiang; Nianqing Xiao; Xiaoyong Du; Wenguang Zhang; Gwenola Tosser-Klopp; Jinhuan Wang; Shuang Yang; Jie Liang; Wenbin Chen; Jing Chen; Peng Zeng; Yong Hou; Chao Bian; Shengkai Pan; Yuxiang Li; Xin Liu; Wenliang Wang; Bertrand Servin; Brian Sayre; Bin Zhu; Deacon Sweeney; Rich Moore; Wenhui Nie; Yongyi Shen; Ruoping Zhao; Guojie Zhang; Jinquan Li; Thomas Faraut; James Womack; Yaping Zhang; James Kijas; Noelle Cockett; Xun Xu; Shuhong Zhao; Jun Wang; Wen Wang
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2012-12-23       Impact factor: 54.908

6.  Genome mapping on nanochannel arrays for structural variation analysis and sequence assembly.

Authors:  Ernest T Lam; Alex Hastie; Chin Lin; Dean Ehrlich; Somes K Das; Michael D Austin; Paru Deshpande; Han Cao; Niranjan Nagarajan; Ming Xiao; Pui-Yan Kwok
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 54.908

7.  Discovery of structural alterations in solid tumor oligodendroglioma by single molecule analysis.

Authors:  Mohana Ray; Steve Goldstein; Shiguo Zhou; Konstantinos Potamousis; Deepayan Sarkar; Michael A Newton; Elizabeth Esterberg; Christina Kendziorski; Oliver Bogler; David C Schwartz
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2013-07-26       Impact factor: 3.969

8.  High-coverage sequencing and annotated assemblies of the budgerigar genome.

Authors:  Ganeshkumar Ganapathy; Jason T Howard; James M Ward; Jianwen Li; Bo Li; Yingrui Li; Yingqi Xiong; Yong Zhang; Shiguo Zhou; David C Schwartz; Michael Schatz; Robert Aboukhalil; Olivier Fedrigo; Lisa Bukovnik; Ty Wang; Greg Wray; Isabelle Rasolonjatovo; Roger Winer; James R Knight; Sergey Koren; Wesley C Warren; Guojie Zhang; Adam M Phillippy; Erich D Jarvis
Journal:  Gigascience       Date:  2014-07-08       Impact factor: 6.524

9.  An integrated map of genetic variation from 1,092 human genomes.

Authors:  Goncalo R Abecasis; Adam Auton; Lisa D Brooks; Mark A DePristo; Richard M Durbin; Robert E Handsaker; Hyun Min Kang; Gabor T Marth; Gil A McVean
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-11-01       Impact factor: 49.962

10.  OPTIMA: sensitive and accurate whole-genome alignment of error-prone genomic maps by combinatorial indexing and technology-agnostic statistical analysis.

Authors:  Davide Verzotto; Audrey S M Teo; Axel M Hillmer; Niranjan Nagarajan
Journal:  Gigascience       Date:  2016-01-19       Impact factor: 6.524

View more
  4 in total

1.  Noise reduction in single time frame optical DNA maps.

Authors:  Paola C Torche; Vilhelm Müller; Fredrik Westerlund; Tobias Ambjörnsson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-06-22       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  An improved assembly and annotation of the melon (Cucumis melo L.) reference genome.

Authors:  Valentino Ruggieri; Konstantinos G Alexiou; Jordi Morata; Jason Argyris; Marta Pujol; Ryoichi Yano; Satoko Nonaka; Hiroshi Ezura; David Latrasse; Adnane Boualem; Moussa Benhamed; Abdelhafid Bendahmane; Riccardo Aiese Cigliano; Walter Sanseverino; Pere Puigdomènech; Josep M Casacuberta; Jordi Garcia-Mas
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Comparative optical genome analysis of two pangolin species: Manis pentadactyla and Manis javanica.

Authors:  Huang Zhihai; Xu Jiang; Xiao Shuiming; Liao Baosheng; Gao Yuan; Zhai Chaochao; Qiu Xiaohui; Xu Wen; Chen Shilin
Journal:  Gigascience       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 6.524

4.  OPTIMA: sensitive and accurate whole-genome alignment of error-prone genomic maps by combinatorial indexing and technology-agnostic statistical analysis.

Authors:  Davide Verzotto; Audrey S M Teo; Axel M Hillmer; Niranjan Nagarajan
Journal:  Gigascience       Date:  2016-01-19       Impact factor: 6.524

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.