Wendy J Huss1, Qiang Hu2, Sean T Glenn3,4, Kalyan J Gangavarapu1, Jianmin Wang2, Jesse D Luce3, Paul K Quinn3, Elizabeth A Brese5, Fenglin Zhan6, Jeffrey M Conroy3, Gyorgy Paragh7,8, Barbara A Foster1, Carl D Morrison3, Song Liu2, Lei Wei9. 1. Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, USA. 2. Departments of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, USA. 3. Center of Personalized Medicine, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, USA. 4. Department of Cancer Genetics, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, USA. 5. Department of Pathology, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, USA. 6. PET/CT Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of the University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China. 7. Department of Dermatology, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, USA. 8. Department of Cell Stress Biology, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, USA. 9. Departments of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, USA, Lei.Wei@RoswellPark.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advances in single-cell sequencing provide unprecedented opportunities for clinical examination of circulating tumor cells, cancer stem cells, and other rare cells responsible for disease progression and drug resistance. On the genomic level, single-cell whole exome sequencing (scWES) started to gain popularity with its unique potentials in characterizing mutational landscapes at a single-cell level. Currently, there is little known about the performance of different exome capture kits in scWES. Nextera rapid capture (NXT; Illumina, Inc.) has been the only exome capture kit recommended for scWES by Fluidigm C1, a widely accessed system in single-cell preparation. RESULTS: In this study, we compared the performance of NXT following Fluidigm's protocol with Agilent SureSelectXT Target Enrichment System (AGL), another exome capture kit widely used for bulk sequencing. We created DNA libraries of 192 single cells isolated from spheres grown from a melanoma specimen using Fluidigm C1. Twelve high-yield cells were selected to perform dual-exome capture and sequencing using AGL and NXT in parallel. After mapping and coverage analysis, AGL outperformed NXT in coverage uniformity, mapping rates of reads, exome capture rates, and low PCR duplicate rates. For germline variant calling, AGL achieved better performance in overlap with known variants in dbSNP and transition-transversion ratios. Using calls from high coverage bulk sequencing from blood DNA as the golden standard, AGL-based scWES demonstrated high positive predictive values, and medium to high sensitivity. Lastly, we evaluated somatic mutation calling by comparing single-cell data with the matched blood sequence as control. On average, 300 mutations were identified in each cell. In 10 of 12 cells, higher numbers of mutations were identified using AGL than NXT, probably caused by coverage depth. When mutations are adequately covered in both AGL and NXT data, the two methods showed very high concordance (93-100% per cell). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that AGL can also be used for scWES when there is sufficient DNA, and it yields better data quality than the current Fluidigm's protocol using NXT.
BACKGROUND: Advances in single-cell sequencing provide unprecedented opportunities for clinical examination of circulating tumor cells, cancer stem cells, and other rare cells responsible for disease progression and drug resistance. On the genomic level, single-cell whole exome sequencing (scWES) started to gain popularity with its unique potentials in characterizing mutational landscapes at a single-cell level. Currently, there is little known about the performance of different exome capture kits in scWES. Nextera rapid capture (NXT; Illumina, Inc.) has been the only exome capture kit recommended for scWES by Fluidigm C1, a widely accessed system in single-cell preparation. RESULTS: In this study, we compared the performance of NXT following Fluidigm's protocol with Agilent SureSelectXT Target Enrichment System (AGL), another exome capture kit widely used for bulk sequencing. We created DNA libraries of 192 single cells isolated from spheres grown from a melanoma specimen using Fluidigm C1. Twelve high-yield cells were selected to perform dual-exome capture and sequencing using AGL and NXT in parallel. After mapping and coverage analysis, AGL outperformed NXT in coverage uniformity, mapping rates of reads, exome capture rates, and low PCR duplicate rates. For germline variant calling, AGL achieved better performance in overlap with known variants in dbSNP and transition-transversion ratios. Using calls from high coverage bulk sequencing from blood DNA as the golden standard, AGL-based scWES demonstrated high positive predictive values, and medium to high sensitivity. Lastly, we evaluated somatic mutation calling by comparing single-cell data with the matched blood sequence as control. On average, 300 mutations were identified in each cell. In 10 of 12 cells, higher numbers of mutations were identified using AGL than NXT, probably caused by coverage depth. When mutations are adequately covered in both AGL and NXT data, the two methods showed very high concordance (93-100% per cell). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that AGL can also be used for scWES when there is sufficient DNA, and it yields better data quality than the current Fluidigm's protocol using NXT.
Authors: S T Sherry; M H Ward; M Kholodov; J Baker; L Phan; E M Smigielski; K Sirotkin Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2001-01-01 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Aaron McKenna; Matthew Hanna; Eric Banks; Andrey Sivachenko; Kristian Cibulskis; Andrew Kernytsky; Kiran Garimella; David Altshuler; Stacey Gabriel; Mark Daly; Mark A DePristo Journal: Genome Res Date: 2010-07-19 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Qianqian Zhu; Qiang Hu; Lori Shepherd; Jianmin Wang; Lei Wei; Carl D Morrison; Jeffrey M Conroy; Sean T Glenn; Warren Davis; Marilyn L Kwan; Isaac J Ergas; Janise M Roh; Lawrence H Kushi; Christine B Ambrosone; Song Liu; Song Yao Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2015-05-19 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Peter Eirew; Adi Steif; Jaswinder Khattra; Gavin Ha; Damian Yap; Hossein Farahani; Karen Gelmon; Stephen Chia; Colin Mar; Adrian Wan; Emma Laks; Justina Biele; Karey Shumansky; Jamie Rosner; Andrew McPherson; Cydney Nielsen; Andrew J L Roth; Calvin Lefebvre; Ali Bashashati; Camila de Souza; Celia Siu; Radhouane Aniba; Jazmine Brimhall; Arusha Oloumi; Tomo Osako; Alejandra Bruna; Jose L Sandoval; Teresa Algara; Wendy Greenwood; Kaston Leung; Hongwei Cheng; Hui Xue; Yuzhuo Wang; Dong Lin; Andrew J Mungall; Richard Moore; Yongjun Zhao; Julie Lorette; Long Nguyen; David Huntsman; Connie J Eaves; Carl Hansen; Marco A Marra; Carlos Caldas; Sohrab P Shah; Samuel Aparicio Journal: Nature Date: 2014-11-26 Impact factor: 49.962
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
Authors: Lei Wei; Sean R Christensen; Megan E Fitzgerald; James Graham; Nicholas D Hutson; Chi Zhang; Ziyun Huang; Qiang Hu; Fenglin Zhan; Jun Xie; Jianmin Zhang; Song Liu; Eva Remenyik; Emese Gellen; Oscar R Colegio; Michael Bax; Jinhui Xu; Haifan Lin; Wendy J Huss; Barbara A Foster; Gyorgy Paragh Journal: Sci Adv Date: 2021-01-01 Impact factor: 14.136
Authors: Nicholas Hutson; Fenglin Zhan; James Graham; Mitsuko Murakami; Han Zhang; Sujana Ganaparti; Qiang Hu; Li Yan; Changxing Ma; Song Liu; Jun Xie; Lei Wei Journal: BMC Med Genomics Date: 2021-12-02 Impact factor: 3.063