ArticleJournal of molecular medicine (Berlin, Germany)2019
Prospect and challenge of detecting dynamic gene copy number increases in stem cells by whole genome sequencing.
Article in Journal of molecular medicine (Berlin, Germany), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Alterations of cell cycle genes in cancer: unmasking the role of cancer stem cells.Molecular biology reports · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gene amplification is an evolutionarily well-conserved and highly efficient mechanism to increase the amount of specific proteins. In humans, gene amplification is a hallmark of cancer and has recently been found during stem cell differentiation. Amplifications in stem cells are restricted to specific tissue areas and time windows, rendering their detection difficult. Here, we report on the performance of deep WGS sequencing (average 82-fold depth of coverage) on the BGISEQ with nanoball technology to detect amplifications in human mesenchymal and neural stem cells. As reference technology, we applied array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH), fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and qPCR. Using different in silico strategies for amplification detection, we analyzed the potential of WGS for amplification detection. Our results provide evidence that WGS accurately identifies changes of the copy number profiles in human stem cell differentiation. However, the identified changes are not in all cases consistent between WGS and aCGH. The results between WGS and the validation by qPCR were concordant in 83.3% of all tested 36 cases. In sum, both genome-wide techniques, aCGH and WGS, have unique advantages and specific challenges, calling for locus-specific confirmation by the low-throughput approaches qPCR or FISH. KEY MESSAGES: WGS allows for the identification of dynamic copy number changes in human stem cells. Less stringent threshold setting is crucial for detection of copy number increase. Broad knowledge of dynamic copy number is pivotal to estimate stem cell capabilities.
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.