Volume 7, Issue 5, Pages (November 2016)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Gene Copy-Number Alterations: A Cost-Benefit Analysis
Advertisements

A Genome-Wide High-Resolution Array-CGH Analysis of Cutaneous Melanoma and Comparison of Array-CGH to FISH in Diagnostic Evaluation  Lu Wang, Mamta Rao,
Ane Y. Schmidt, Thomas v. O. Hansen, Lise B
Mosaic Uniparental Disomies and Aneuploidies as Large Structural Variants of the Human Genome  Benjamín Rodríguez-Santiago, Núria Malats, Nathaniel Rothman,
Nonrecurrent 17p11.2p12 Rearrangement Events that Result in Two Concomitant Genomic Disorders: The PMP22-RAI1 Contiguous Gene Duplication Syndrome  Bo.
Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages (August 2017)
Kendy K. Wong, Ronald J. deLeeuw, Nirpjit S. Dosanjh, Lindsey R
Virtual Karyotyping Reveals Greater Chromosomal Stability in Neural Cells Derived by Transdifferentiation than Those from Stem Cells  Uri Weissbein, Uri.
Volume 10, Issue 6, Pages (June 2018)
Jianbin Wang, H. Christina Fan, Barry Behr, Stephen R. Quake  Cell 
Angela Leo, Andrew M. Walker, Matthew S
ppGpp Controls Global Gene Expression in Light and in Darkness in S
Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages (October 2010)
Volume 8, Issue 5, Pages (September 2014)
Volume 2, Issue 6, Pages (June 2014)
Customized Oligonucleotide Array-Based Comparative Genomic Hybridization as a Clinical Assay for Genomic Profiling of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia  Rachel.
Volume 8, Issue 4, Pages (April 2017)
Volume 20, Issue 12, Pages (September 2017)
Shiran Bar, Maya Schachter, Talia Eldar-Geva, Nissim Benvenisty 
Identification of Combinatorial Genomic Abnormalities Associated with Prostate Cancer Early Recurrence  Xiaoyu Qu, Claudio Jeldres, Lena Glaskova, Cynthia.
Volume 2, Issue 6, Pages (June 2014)
Large-Scale Analysis Reveals Acquisition of Lineage-Specific Chromosomal Aberrations in Human Adult Stem Cells  Uri Ben-David, Yoav Mayshar, Nissim Benvenisty 
A Genome-Wide High-Resolution Array-CGH Analysis of Cutaneous Melanoma and Comparison of Array-CGH to FISH in Diagnostic Evaluation  Lu Wang, Mamta Rao,
Validation and Implementation of a Custom Next-Generation Sequencing Clinical Assay for Hematologic Malignancies  Michael J. Kluk, R. Coleman Lindsley,
Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages (October 2017)
Volume 22, Issue 10, Pages (October 2015)
Cyclin E1 Is Amplified and Overexpressed in Osteosarcoma
Volume 1, Issue 4, Pages (October 2013)
Volume 24, Issue 4, Pages (July 2018)
Volume 4, Issue 6, Pages (September 2013)
Volume 4, Issue 3, Pages (March 2015)
Ashley M. Laughney, Sergi Elizalde, Giulio Genovese, Samuel F. Bakhoum 
Accurate single cell 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening using whole genome amplification and single nucleotide polymorphism microarrays  Nathan R. Treff,
Nonrecurrent 17p11.2p12 Rearrangement Events that Result in Two Concomitant Genomic Disorders: The PMP22-RAI1 Contiguous Gene Duplication Syndrome  Bo.
Volume 6, Issue 5, Pages (May 2016)
The Shortest Telomere, Not Average Telomere Length, Is Critical for Cell Viability and Chromosome Stability  Michael T Hemann, Margaret A Strong, Ling-Yang.
Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages 1-10 (July 2016)
Volume 18, Issue 2, Pages (February 2016)
Defining Ploidy-Specific Thresholds in Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization to Improve the Sensitivity of Detection of Single Copy Alterations in Cell.
Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization Detects Chromosomal Abnormalities in Hematological Cancers That Are Not Detected by Conventional Cytogenetics 
Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages (October 2016)
Volume 25, Issue 3, Pages e6 (October 2018)
A Clinically Validated Diagnostic Second-Generation Sequencing Assay for Detection of Hereditary BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutations  Ian E. Bosdet, T. Roderick.
Volume 10, Issue 3, Pages (March 2018)
Gene Copy-Number Alterations: A Cost-Benefit Analysis
High-Resolution Molecular Characterization of 15q11-q13 Rearrangements by Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization (Array CGH) with Detection of Gene Dosage 
Volume 1, Issue 6, Pages (December 2013)
Volume 9, Issue 5, Pages (November 2017)
Volume 8, Issue 4, Pages (April 2017)
Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages (January 2011)
Volume 8, Issue 5, Pages (May 2017)
Volume 26, Issue 5, Pages (March 2016)
A DNA Replication Mechanism for Generating Nonrecurrent Rearrangements Associated with Genomic Disorders  Jennifer A. Lee, Claudia M.B. Carvalho, James.
Shiran Bar, Maya Schachter, Talia Eldar-Geva, Nissim Benvenisty 
Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages (October 2017)
The Requirement for the Dam1 Complex Is Dependent upon the Number of Kinetochore Proteins and Microtubules  Laura S. Burrack, Shelly E. Applen, Judith.
Directed Differentiation of Human Pluripotent Stem Cells to Microglia
Volume 4, Issue 3, Pages e3 (March 2017)
Volume 21, Issue 9, Pages (November 2017)
Haploinsufficiency at the Nkx3.1 locus
Volume 9, Issue 3, Pages (September 2017)
Volume 1, Issue 5, Pages (November 2013)
Virtual Karyotyping Reveals Greater Chromosomal Stability in Neural Cells Derived by Transdifferentiation than Those from Stem Cells  Uri Weissbein, Uri.
Targeted Deletion of an Entire Chromosome Using CRISPR/Cas9
Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages (July 2014)
Volume 12, Issue 3, Pages (March 2019)
Volume 4, Issue 4, Pages (April 2015)
Development of a Novel Next-Generation Sequencing Assay for Carrier Screening in Old Order Amish and Mennonite Populations of Pennsylvania  Erin L. Crowgey,
Volume 26, Issue 11, Pages e6 (March 2019)
Trisomy Correction in Down Syndrome Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells
Presentation transcript:

Volume 7, Issue 5, Pages 998-1012 (November 2016) Detecting Genetic Mosaicism in Cultures of Human Pluripotent Stem Cells  Duncan Baker, Adam J. Hirst, Paul J. Gokhale, Miguel A. Juarez, Steve Williams, Mark Wheeler, Kerry Bean, Thomas F. Allison, Harry D. Moore, Peter W. Andrews, Ivana Barbaric  Stem Cell Reports  Volume 7, Issue 5, Pages 998-1012 (November 2016) DOI: 10.1016/j.stemcr.2016.10.003 Copyright © 2016 The Authors Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Ideogram Summarizing the Reported Chromosome Changes in Human Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Each colored bar represents one chromosome change occurrence in one cell line. Chromosome losses and gains are shown to the left and right of the ideogram, respectively, except that in those instances where a single chromosome rearrangement results in a gain and a loss, the colored bars are shown together for clarity. The cytogenetic changes are color coded: maroon, loss of a whole chromosome (monosomy); red, loss via a structural chromosome rearrangement (unbalanced translocation or interstitial deletion); dark green, gain of a whole chromosome (trisomy); light green, gain via a structural chromosome rearrangement (unbalanced translocation or interstitial duplication); blue, occurrence of an apparently balanced rearrangement the nature of which is labeled. Instances in which a change affected only a single chromosome are denoted by a filled circle, whereas changes associated with complex karyotypes (>5 unrelated chromosome aberrations) are denoted by a star. The list of references used for this summary can be found in the Supplemental References. Stem Cell Reports 2016 7, 998-1012DOI: (10.1016/j.stemcr.2016.10.003) Copyright © 2016 The Authors Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Sensitivity of Karyotyping in Detecting Mosaicism in hPSC Cultures Diploid (H7.s14) and aneuploid (H7.s6-GFP, stably expressing GFP) cells were mixed at different ratios. The percentage of aneuploid cells was confirmed by imaging the cells on a high-content microscopy platform and using associated image analysis software to count the number of aneuploid cells based on GFP expression. Mosaic cultures containing (A) 1%, (B) 6%, (C) 9%, (D) 13%, (E) 18%, and (F) 28% aneuploid cells within the diploid cell population were subjected to karyotypic analysis. Metaphase cells were scored for the presence or absence of the abnormal chromosome 6, der(6)t(6;17)(q27;q1) in the mixed samples. Increasing numbers of metaphases (from 5 to 100) were scored from each sample. The numbers of abnormal cells detected in triplicate analysis (red, green, and blue circles) were plotted against statistically determined expected numbers of abnormal cells (dashed lines) as detailed in Table S1. Stem Cell Reports 2016 7, 998-1012DOI: (10.1016/j.stemcr.2016.10.003) Copyright © 2016 The Authors Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Sensitivity of Karyotyping in Detecting Mosaicism in hPSC Cultures Tested on a Different Pair of Normal and Genetically Variant Cells Diploid (H14.s9) and aneuploid (H14BJ1-GFP) cells were mixed at different ratios. Flow cytometry was used to determine the ratio of abnormal cells in mixed cultures based on their GFP expression. Mosaic cultures containing (A) 2%, (B) 6%, (C) 10%, and (D) 19% aneuploid cells within the diploid cell population were subjected to karyotypic analysis. Metaphase cells were scored for the presence or absence of an additional abnormal chromosome 17, der(17)del(17)(p13.3)hsr(17)(p11.2). Increasing numbers of metaphases (from 5 to 100) were scored from each sample. The numbers of abnormal cells detected (red circles) were plotted against statistically determined expected numbers of abnormal cells (dotted lines) (Table S1). Stem Cell Reports 2016 7, 998-1012DOI: (10.1016/j.stemcr.2016.10.003) Copyright © 2016 The Authors Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 qPCR Assay for Detecting Common Genetic Changes in hPSCs Copy-number values for target genes on commonly amplified chromosomal regions for the hPSC lines (A) Shef5, (B) MasterShef 8, (C) MasterShef 14, (D) H14.s9, (E) H7.s14-Tomato, (F) H14BJ1, (G) Shef5-SF9, (H) H7.s6, (I) HES3-MIXL, and (J) Shef6 2A7. Plotted values are means of copy numbers calculated relative to each of the calibrator lines ± SEM. Red lines represent cutoff levels calculated as 3 SDs of the copy-number values of calibrator samples. Stem Cell Reports 2016 7, 998-1012DOI: (10.1016/j.stemcr.2016.10.003) Copyright © 2016 The Authors Terms and Conditions

Figure 5 Sensitivity of Different Methods for Detecting Mosaicism of Chromosome 17q Trisomy in hPSC Cultures (A) qPCR analysis of samples with ratios of abnormal cells ranging from 0% to 100%. The panels from left to right represent three biological replicates. Plotted values on each graph are copy-number means of technical triplicates ± SEM. (B) ddPCR analysis of samples with ratios of abnormal cells ranging from 0% to 100%. The panels represent three biological replicates. Plotted on each graph are copy-number values and the Poisson distribution at 95% confidence interval. (C) FISH analysis of samples containing 0%–100% cells with a gain of chromosome 17q. The panels represent three biological replicates. Plotted values on each graph are percentage of cells with amplification among 100 cells analyzed. Dotted lines on each graph represent the expected values for each mixed sample. (D) FISH analysis of samples containing 0% and 1% cells with a gain of chromosome 17q, shown as the percentage of cells with amplification among 1,000 cells analyzed. Plotted values are averages of biological triplicates ± SD. Stem Cell Reports 2016 7, 998-1012DOI: (10.1016/j.stemcr.2016.10.003) Copyright © 2016 The Authors Terms and Conditions

Figure 6 Sensitivity of Different Methods for Detecting Mosaicism of Chromosome 20q11.21 CNV in hPSC Cultures (A) qPCR analysis of samples with ratios of abnormal cells ranging from 0% to 100%. The panels represent three biological replicates. Plotted values on each graph are copy-number means of technical triplicates ± SEM. (B) ddPCR analysis of samples with ratios of abnormal cells ranging from 0% to 100%. The panels represent three biological replicates. Plotted on each graph are copy-number values and the Poisson distribution at 95% confidence interval. (C) FISH analysis of samples containing 0%–100% cells with a gain of chromosome 20q. The panels represent three biological replicates. Plotted values on each graph are percentage of cells with amplification among 100 cells analyzed. Dotted lines on each graph represent the expected values for each mixed sample. (D) FISH analysis of samples containing 0%, 0.01%, 1%, and 5% of cells with a gain of chromosome 20q, shown as the percentage of cells with amplification among 1,000 cells analyzed. Plotted values are averages of biological triplicates ± SD. Stem Cell Reports 2016 7, 998-1012DOI: (10.1016/j.stemcr.2016.10.003) Copyright © 2016 The Authors Terms and Conditions