ArticleScientific reports2018
Comparison of single cell sequencing data between two whole genome amplification methods on two sequencing platforms.
Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Differential performance of strategies for single-cell whole-genome amplification.Cell reports methods · 2025Article
- Single-cell genome and transcriptome sequencing without upfront whole-genome amplification reveals cell state plasticity of melanoma subclones.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
- Metagenomic detection of protozoan parasites on leafy greens aided by a rapid and efficient DNA extraction protocol.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Review
- Single-Circulating Tumor Cell Whole Genome Amplification to Unravel Cancer Heterogeneity and Actionable Biomarkers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Kronos scRT: a uniform framework for single-cell replication timing analysis.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Simultaneous detection of genomic imbalance in patients receiving preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic diseases (PGT-M).Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Cancer evolution: Darwin and beyond.The EMBO journal · 2021Review
- Single-cell sequencing of the small and AT-skewed genome of malaria parasites.Genome medicine · 2021Article
- Evaluation of whole genome amplification and bioinformatic methods for the characterization of Leishmania genomes at a single cell level.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Genomic Analysis of Circulating Tumor Cells at the Single-Cell Level.The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD · 2020Article
- Utility of Plasmodium falciparum DNA from rapid diagnostic test kits for molecular analysis and whole genome amplification.Malaria journal · 2020Article
- Current status of spent embryo media research for preimplantation genetic testing.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research based on a strategy of single-cell low-coverage whole genome sequencing (SLWGS) has enabled better reproducibility and accuracy for detection of copy number variations (CNVs). The whole genome amplification (WGA) method and sequencing platform are critical factors for successful SLWGS (<0.1 × coverage). In this study, we compared single cell and multiple cells sequencing data produced by the HiSeq2000 and Ion Proton platforms using two WGA kits and then comprehensively evaluated the GC-bias, reproducibility, uniformity and CNV detection among different experimental combinations. Our analysis demonstrated that the PicoPLEX WGA Kit resulted in higher reproducibility, lower sequencing error frequency but more GC-bias than the GenomePlex Single Cell WGA Kit (WGA4 kit) independent of the cell number on the HiSeq2000 platform. While on the Ion Proton platform, the WGA4 kit (both single cell and multiple cells) had higher uniformity and less GC-bias but lower reproducibility than those of the PicoPLEX WGA Kit. Moreover, on these two sequencing platforms, depending on cell number, the performance of the two WGA kits was different for both sensitivity and specificity on CNV detection. The results can help researchers who plan to use SLWGS on single or multiple cells to select appropriate experimental conditions for their applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.