Mikhail G Dozmorov1,2, Katarzyna M Tyc1,3, Nathan C Sheffield4, David C Boyd2,5, Amy L Olex6, Jason Reed7,8, J Chuck Harrell2. 1. Department of Biostatistics, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23298, USA. 2. Department of Pathology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23284, USA. 3. Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, 23298, USA. 4. Center for Public Health Genomics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22908, USA. 5. Integrative Life Sciences Doctoral Program, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23298, USA. 6. C. Kenneth and Dianne Wright Center for Clinical and Translational Research, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23298, USA. 7. Virginia Commonwealth University, Massey Cancer Center, Richmond, VA, 23298, USA. 8. Department of Physics, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23220, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sequencing of patient-derived xenograft (PDX) mouse models allows investigation of the molecular mechanisms of human tumor samples engrafted in a mouse host. Thus, both human and mouse genetic material is sequenced. Several methods have been developed to remove mouse sequencing reads from RNA-seq or exome sequencing PDX data and improve the downstream signal. However, for more recent chromatin conformation capture technologies (Hi-C), the effect of mouse reads remains undefined. RESULTS: We evaluated the effect of mouse read removal on the quality of Hi-C data using in silico created PDX Hi-C data with 10% and 30% mouse reads. Additionally, we generated 2 experimental PDX Hi-C datasets using different library preparation strategies. We evaluated 3 alignment strategies (Direct, Xenome, Combined) and 3 pipelines (Juicer, HiC-Pro, HiCExplorer) on Hi-C data quality. CONCLUSIONS: Removal of mouse reads had little-to-no effect on data quality as compared with the results obtained with the Direct alignment strategy. Juicer extracted more valid chromatin interactions for Hi-C matrices, regardless of the mouse read removal strategy. However, the pipeline effect was minimal, while the library preparation strategy had the largest effect on all quality metrics. Together, our study presents comprehensive guidelines on PDX Hi-C data processing.
BACKGROUND: Sequencing of patient-derived xenograft (PDX) mouse models allows investigation of the molecular mechanisms of human tumor samples engrafted in a mouse host. Thus, both human and mouse genetic material is sequenced. Several methods have been developed to remove mouse sequencing reads from RNA-seq or exome sequencing PDX data and improve the downstream signal. However, for more recent chromatin conformation capture technologies (Hi-C), the effect of mouse reads remains undefined. RESULTS: We evaluated the effect of mouse read removal on the quality of Hi-C data using in silico created PDX Hi-C data with 10% and 30% mouse reads. Additionally, we generated 2 experimental PDX Hi-C datasets using different library preparation strategies. We evaluated 3 alignment strategies (Direct, Xenome, Combined) and 3 pipelines (Juicer, HiC-Pro, HiCExplorer) on Hi-C data quality. CONCLUSIONS: Removal of mouse reads had little-to-no effect on data quality as compared with the results obtained with the Direct alignment strategy. Juicer extracted more valid chromatin interactions for Hi-C matrices, regardless of the mouse read removal strategy. However, the pipeline effect was minimal, while the library preparation strategy had the largest effect on all quality metrics. Together, our study presents comprehensive guidelines on PDX Hi-C data processing.
Authors: Yoko S DeRose; Guoying Wang; Yi-Chun Lin; Philip S Bernard; Saundra S Buys; Mark T W Ebbert; Rachel Factor; Cindy Matsen; Brett A Milash; Edward Nelson; Leigh Neumayer; R Lor Randall; Inge J Stijleman; Bryan E Welm; Alana L Welm Journal: Nat Med Date: 2011-10-23 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Andrew J Fritz; Prachi N Ghule; Joseph R Boyd; Coralee E Tye; Natalie A Page; Deli Hong; David J Shirley; Adam S Weinheimer; Ahmet R Barutcu; Diana L Gerrard; Seth Frietze; Andre J van Wijnen; Sayyed K Zaidi; Anthony N Imbalzano; Jane B Lian; Janet L Stein; Gary S Stein Journal: J Cell Physiol Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 6.384
Authors: David S Rickman; T David Soong; Benjamin Moss; Juan Miguel Mosquera; Jan Dlabal; Stéphane Terry; Theresa Y MacDonald; Joseph Tripodi; Karen Bunting; Vesna Najfeld; Francesca Demichelis; Ari M Melnick; Olivier Elemento; Mark A Rubin Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2012-05-21 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: E Izumchenko; K Paz; D Ciznadija; I Sloma; A Katz; D Vasquez-Dunddel; I Ben-Zvi; J Stebbing; W McGuire; W Harris; R Maki; A Gaya; A Bedi; S Zacharoulis; R Ravi; L H Wexler; M O Hoque; C Rodriguez-Galindo; H Pass; N Peled; A Davies; R Morris; M Hidalgo; D Sidransky Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Alejandra Bruna; Oscar M Rueda; Wendy Greenwood; Ankita Sati Batra; Maurizio Callari; Rajbir Nath Batra; Katherine Pogrebniak; Jose Sandoval; John W Cassidy; Ana Tufegdzic-Vidakovic; Stephen-John Sammut; Linda Jones; Elena Provenzano; Richard Baird; Peter Eirew; James Hadfield; Matthew Eldridge; Anne McLaren-Douglas; Andrew Barthorpe; Howard Lightfoot; Mark J O'Connor; Joe Gray; Javier Cortes; Jose Baselga; Elisabetta Marangoni; Alana L Welm; Samuel Aparicio; Violeta Serra; Mathew J Garnett; Carlos Caldas Journal: Cell Date: 2016-09-15 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Mohammad A Alzubi; Tia H Turner; Amy L Olex; Sahib S Sohal; Nicholas P Tobin; Susana G Recio; Jonas Bergh; Thomas Hatschek; Joel S Parker; Carol A Sartorius; Charles M Perou; Mikhail G Dozmorov; J Chuck Harrell Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2019-03-06 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Mikhail G Dozmorov; Katarzyna M Tyc; Nathan C Sheffield; David C Boyd; Amy L Olex; Jason Reed; J Chuck Harrell Journal: Gigascience Date: 2021-04-21 Impact factor: 6.524