Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28915574›Full record

ArticleOncotarget2017

Comparative study of whole genome amplification and next generation sequencing performance of single cancer cells.

Anna Babayan, Malik Alawi, Michael Gormley, Volkmar Müller, Harriet Wikman, Ryan P McMullin, Denis A Smirnov, Weimin Li, Maria Geffken, Klaus Pantel and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. New Perspectives for Whole Genome Amplification in Forensic STR Analysis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Anna BabayanDepartment of Tumor Biology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Malik AlawiBioinformatics Core, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Michael GormleyJanssen Research and Development, Spring House, PA, USA.
Volkmar MüllerDepartment of Gynecology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Harriet WikmanDepartment of Tumor Biology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Ryan P McMullinLabConnect LLC, Seattle, WA, USA.
Denis A SmirnovJanssen Research and Development, Spring House, PA, USA.
Weimin LiJanssen Research and Development, Spring House, PA, USA.
Maria GeffkenDepartment of Transfusion Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Klaus PantelDepartment of Tumor Biology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Simon A JoosseDepartment of Tumor Biology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhole genome amplification (WGA) is required for single cell genotyping. Effectiveness of currently available WGA technologies in combination with next generation sequencing (NGS) and material preservation is still elusive.

resultsIn respect to the accuracy of SNP/mutation, indel, and copy number aberrations (CNA) calling, the HiSeq2000 platform outperformed IonProton in all aspects. Furthermore, more accurate SNP/mutation and indel calling was demonstrated using single tumor cells obtained from EDTA-collected blood in respect to CellSave-preserved blood, whereas CNA analysis in our study was not detectably affected by fixation. Although MDA-based WGA yielded the highest DNA amount, DNA quality was not adequate for downstream analysis. PCR-based WGA demonstrates superiority over MDA-PCR combining technique for SNP and indel analysis in single cells. However, SNP calling performance of MDA-PCR WGA improves with increasing amount of input DNA, whereas CNA analysis does not. The performance of PCR-based WGA did not significantly improve with increase of input material. CNA profiles of single cells, amplified with MDA-PCR technique and sequenced on both HiSeq2000 and IonProton platforms, resembled unamplified DNA the most. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe analyzed the performance of PCR-based, multiple-displacement amplification (MDA)-based, and MDA-PCR combining WGA techniques (WGA kits Ampli1, REPLI-g, and PicoPlex, respectively) on single and pooled tumor cells obtained from EDTA- and CellSave-preserved blood and archival material. Amplified DNA underwent exome-Seq with the Illumina HiSeq2000 and ThermoFisher IonProton platforms.

conclusionWe demonstrate the feasibility of single cell genotyping of differently preserved material, nevertheless, WGA and NGS approaches have to be chosen carefully depending on the study aims.

Indexed as

allelic dropoutCellSaveNGSSNPWGA

Identifiers

PMID28915574
PMCPMC5593545

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.