Long-read structural and epigenetic profiling of a kidney tumor-matched sample with nanopore sequencing and optical genome mapping.

IF 4 Q1 GENETICS & HEREDITY NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics Pub Date : 2025-01-07 eCollection Date: 2025-03-01 DOI:10.1093/nargab/lqae190
Sapir Margalit, Zuzana Tulpová, Tahir Detinis Zur, Yael Michaeli, Jasline Deek, Gil Nifker, Rita Haldar, Yehudit Gnatek, Dorit Omer, Benjamin Dekel, Hagit Baris Feldman, Assaf Grunwald, Yuval Ebenstein
{"title":"Long-read structural and epigenetic profiling of a kidney tumor-matched sample with nanopore sequencing and optical genome mapping.","authors":"Sapir Margalit, Zuzana Tulpová, Tahir Detinis Zur, Yael Michaeli, Jasline Deek, Gil Nifker, Rita Haldar, Yehudit Gnatek, Dorit Omer, Benjamin Dekel, Hagit Baris Feldman, Assaf Grunwald, Yuval Ebenstein","doi":"10.1093/nargab/lqae190","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Carcinogenesis often involves significant alterations in the cancer genome, marked by large structural variants (SVs) and copy number variations (CNVs) that are difficult to capture with short-read sequencing. Traditionally, cytogenetic techniques are applied to detect such aberrations, but they are limited in resolution and do not cover features smaller than several hundred kilobases. Optical genome mapping (OGM) and nanopore sequencing [Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT)] bridge this resolution gap and offer enhanced performance for cytogenetic applications. Additionally, both methods can capture epigenetic information as they profile native, individual DNA molecules. We compared the effectiveness of the two methods in characterizing the structural, copy number and epigenetic landscape of a clear cell renal cell carcinoma tumor. Both methods provided comparable results for basic karyotyping and CNVs, but differed in their ability to detect SVs of different sizes and types. ONT outperformed OGM in detecting small SVs, while OGM excelled in detecting larger SVs, including translocations. Differences were also observed among various ONT SV callers. Additionally, both methods provided insights into the tumor's methylome and hydroxymethylome. While ONT was superior in methylation calling, hydroxymethylation reports can be further optimized. Our findings underscore the importance of carefully selecting the most appropriate platform based on specific research questions.</p>","PeriodicalId":33994,"journal":{"name":"NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics","volume":"7 1","pages":"lqae190"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11704781/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/nargab/lqae190","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Carcinogenesis often involves significant alterations in the cancer genome, marked by large structural variants (SVs) and copy number variations (CNVs) that are difficult to capture with short-read sequencing. Traditionally, cytogenetic techniques are applied to detect such aberrations, but they are limited in resolution and do not cover features smaller than several hundred kilobases. Optical genome mapping (OGM) and nanopore sequencing [Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT)] bridge this resolution gap and offer enhanced performance for cytogenetic applications. Additionally, both methods can capture epigenetic information as they profile native, individual DNA molecules. We compared the effectiveness of the two methods in characterizing the structural, copy number and epigenetic landscape of a clear cell renal cell carcinoma tumor. Both methods provided comparable results for basic karyotyping and CNVs, but differed in their ability to detect SVs of different sizes and types. ONT outperformed OGM in detecting small SVs, while OGM excelled in detecting larger SVs, including translocations. Differences were also observed among various ONT SV callers. Additionally, both methods provided insights into the tumor's methylome and hydroxymethylome. While ONT was superior in methylation calling, hydroxymethylation reports can be further optimized. Our findings underscore the importance of carefully selecting the most appropriate platform based on specific research questions.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用纳米孔测序和光学基因组作图对肾肿瘤匹配样本进行长读结构和表观遗传分析。
癌变通常涉及癌症基因组的重大改变,其特征是大结构变异(SVs)和拷贝数变异(cnv),这些变化很难用短读测序捕获。传统上,细胞遗传学技术被应用于检测这种畸变,但它们在分辨率上是有限的,并且不能覆盖小于几百千碱基的特征。光学基因组图谱(OGM)和纳米孔测序[牛津纳米孔技术(ONT)]弥补了这一分辨率差距,并为细胞遗传学应用提供了更高的性能。此外,这两种方法都可以捕获表观遗传信息,因为它们描述了原生的单个DNA分子。我们比较了两种方法在描述透明细胞肾细胞癌肿瘤的结构、拷贝数和表观遗传景观方面的有效性。两种方法对基本核型和CNVs的检测结果具有可比性,但检测不同大小和类型的svv的能力存在差异。ONT在检测小SVs方面优于OGM,而OGM在检测大SVs(包括易位)方面优于OGM。在不同的ONT SV呼叫者之间也观察到差异。此外,这两种方法都提供了对肿瘤甲基组和羟甲基组的见解。虽然ONT在甲基化呼叫方面具有优势,但羟甲基化报告可以进一步优化。我们的发现强调了根据具体研究问题仔细选择最合适平台的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
2.20%
发文量
95
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
stana: an R package for metagenotyping analysis and interactive application based on clinical data. Long-read structural and epigenetic profiling of a kidney tumor-matched sample with nanopore sequencing and optical genome mapping. ProPr54 web server: predicting σ54 promoters and regulon with a hybrid convolutional and recurrent deep neural network. PSAURON: a tool for assessing protein annotation across a broad range of species. Specifying cellular context of transcription factor regulons for exploring context-specific gene regulation programs.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1