- Research Note
- Open access
- Published:
Concurrent analysis of genome and transcriptome in one single cell
BMC Research Notes volume 17, Article number: 267 (2024)
Abstract
Thus far, multiple techniques for single cell analysis have been developed, yet we lack a relatively simple tool to assess DNA and RNA from the same cell at whole-transcriptome and whole-genome depths. Here we present an updated method for physical separation of cytoplasmic RNA from the nuclei, which allows for simultaneous studies of DNA and RNA from the same single cell. The method consists of three steps—(1) immobilization of a single cell on solid substrate, (2) hypotonic lysis of immobilized single cell, and (3) separation of cytosol containing aqueous phase and immobilized nucleus. We found that DNA and RNA extracted from single cell using our approach is suitable for downstream sequencing-based applications. We demonstrated that the coverage of transcriptome and genome sequencing data obtained after DNA/RNA separation is similar to that observed without separation. We also showed that the separation procedure does not create any noticeable bias in observed mutational load or mutation spectra. Thus, our method can serve as a tool for simultaneous complex analysis of the genome and transcriptome, providing necessary information on the relationship between somatic mutations and the regulation of gene expression.
Introduction
The advent and rapid development of single cell sequencing technologies permitting fast and accurate analysis of individual whole genomes resulted in an avalanche of experimental evidence on the pivotal role of somatic mutations in human aging and diseases such as cancer [1, 2]. Arguably, single cell-based approaches played the most important role in our progress in study of somatic mutation as they allow us to accurately assess random somatic mutations [3, 4]. These studies clearly demonstrated that a healthy somatic cell contains several hundred unique mutations, a number which increases due to multiple factors over the course of life and reaches thousands towards the end of life [5, 6]. However, despite evidence of increasing mutations during aging, it still remains unclear whether these changes in genome are translated to changes in cellular function. It has become apparent now that complete understanding of these mechanisms is only possible by comprehensive analysis of changes in both genome and transcriptome of a single cell, the only methodology that allows the establishment of direct links between mutations and their functional implementation.
There are several approaches available for separation and further analysis of DNA and RNA contents of one single cell. Many of these methods are based on capture of mRNA molecules using oligo-dT probes followed by immobilization and separation of captured transcripts from genomic DNA [7,8,9]. An alternative approach was implemented by simultaneous isolation of genomic DNA and total RNA (SIDR) where RNA-containing cytoplasm is released into aqueous phase by hypotonic lysis and then separated from the immobilized nucleus by simple aspiration [10]. However, practical application of SIDR is limited by availability of cell-surface specific antibodies conjugated to magnetic beads. Here we introduce a simple modification to SIDR allowing isolation and parallel analysis of DNA and RNA from a single cell using the CellRaft AIR system by Cell Microsystems as a mean to immobilize individual cells prior to lysis. We demonstrate that DNA and RNA separated with the modified approach are suitable for downstream applications and that this procedure does not introduce any significant bias to the results of DNA and RNA analysis.
Description of the method
Single cell isolation and fractionation
Isolation of primary human IMR90 fibroblasts was conducted using the automated Air Raft system by Cell Microsystems. This machine allows direct visualization and identification of cells plated and adhered to the CytoSort Array, composed of thousands of microwells (so-called CellRafts). The CellRafts are magnetic and can be individually selected and released from the array. When an individual cell is identified on the surface of a CellRaft, it is then picked and transferred to a PCR tube using a magnetic wand. Once deposited into tube, the individual cell is then exposed to the hypotonic lysis buffer (HLB) to disrupt the cell membrane and release cytoplasm into aqueous phase as described previously by others [10]. The DNA-containing nucleus remains embedded into the cytoskeleton and attached to the CellRaft due to residual connections with fragments of the disrupted membrane. These connections provide mechanical stability, ensuring that the nucleus stays immobilized on the CellRaft during the separation process. Next, the tube is placed on a magnetic stand to immobilize the CellRaft together with the nucleus. The RNA-containing supernatant is then aspirated and transferred to a separate tube, leaving the DNA-containing nucleus in the original tube (Fig. 1). With this, DNA and RNA are physically separated from each other and can be further processed either immediately or stored at -80C until needed.
Verification and Comparison
DNA/RNA separation does not affect single cell RNA-seq results.
As a first step, we tested if DNA/RNA separation procedure introduces a bias in results of gene expression analysis. We were able to successfully convert single cell cytoplasmic RNA into cDNA after DNA/RNA separation via hypotonic lysis and generate sequencing libraries (Supp.Fig. 1). We also constructed RNA-seq libraries from intact single cells, without DNA/RNA separation, as a control. In total we analyzed 3 native cells without separation and 3 cells after DNA/RNA separation procedure. First, we tested if separation procedure affects relative representation of different transcripts in RNA-seq data. We reasoned that single-cell transcriptomes combined in one pseudo-bulk should provide a set of data similar to the bulk RNA-seq of thousands of cells and, hence, may serve as a measure for accuracy of transcriptome assessment. We composed two pseudo-bulk data sets, one containing single cell RNA-seq data after DNA/RNA separation and the other without that. Only genes with at least 3 counts in each analyzed cell were included in pseudo-bulks. We found that these two pseudo-bulks have similar levels of correlation with RNA-seq data (R = 0.65 and R = 0.58, non-separated and separated, respectively; Fig. 2A). Moreover, we compared the correlation of the individual cells with the bulk and found slightly higher correlation in separated cells (Supp.Fig. 2). The pseudo bulks generated from separated and non-separated cells correlated well (R = 0.91; Supp.Fig. 3). Finally, we assessed the total number of genes detected in single cells as well as the number of genes shared between single cells and the bulk and did not see a significant difference between separated and naïve cells (Fig. 2B). Thus, we found that DNA/RNA separation procedure does not introduce any significant bias in single-cell transcriptome analysis results and transcriptomics data obtained after separation procedure can be confidently used.
DNA/RNA separation does not affect single cell genome analysis
We first tested if DNA from immobilized nuclei can be successfully amplified. For this purpose, after separation of RNA-containing aqueous fraction remaining nuclei attached to CellRafts were subjected to whole genome amplification (WGA) using our scMDA approach [4]. We found that the DNA yield of scMDA procedure was lower between cells with and without DNA/RNA separation (248ng/µl ± 2 ng/µl vs 442ng/µl ± 36ng/µl, respectively). We performed locus drop-out test (LDO), a qPCR-based approach measuring relative representation of 8 different targets distributed across the genome [3], to assess the uniformity of the whole genome amplification. The LDO test also did not reveal any significant differences in quality of WGA products with and without DNA/RNA separation (Supplementary Table 1).
We also did not observe a statistically significant difference in the rates of genome coverage in single cell genome sequencing data obtained from cells with and without DNA/RNA separation procedure (Supp.Fig. 4).
The frequency of somatic SNVs in single cells subjected to DNA/RNA separation was 2528 ± 518 SNVs per cell, which is not significantly different from that observed in intact single cells (2177 ± 185 SNVs per cell) (Fig. 3A). Also, no difference between non-separated and separated cells was observed in the levels of INDELs: non-separated cells contained 130 ± 43 INDELs and separated 136 ± 46 INDELs per cell (Fig. 3B).
To further investigate a possible separation effect in more detail, we assessed the mutational spectra of sepaterated and non-separated cells. The distribution of SNVs did not change significantly in separated cells compared to non-separated cells (Fig. 3C). Moreover, the ratio of insertions and deletions was not affected by the separation procedure (Fig. 3D). Hence, we concluded that the separation method is not mutagenic and does not introduce any significan bias to the results of analysis of mutational burden and spectra.
Applications
This method can be used for a wide range of cells: while adherent cells will attach themselves to the cell raft, cells grown in suspension can be fixed onto the raft using poly-lysine or collagen. We successfully isolated single cells from coated cell rafts before [6, 11] and no impact on subsequent library quality was apparent. We also tested the protocol with control and mutagen-treated cells and could thereby assess gene expression and mutational load from the same cell. Moreover, we also successfully applied this method to a broad range of human and rodent cells to analyze individual gene expression patterns and mutational burden. Moreover, we also successfully prepared libraries for DNA methylation analysis from the nuclear fraction. We therefore believe that this method allows great insight into DNA regulations of gene expression and will be of interest for other scientists and their projects.
Discussion
Here we present a simplified method for DNA/RNA separation that allows for simultaneous investigation of gene expression profiles and mutation patterns in the same single cell. When comparing bulk RNA-seq data and pseudo-bulks compiled from single-cell RNA-seq results of cells with and without DNA/RNA separation, we found similar levels of correlation. In addition, the DNA/RNA separation procedure did not affect the number of identified genes in the single-cell RNA-seq or the proportion of identified genes overlapping with the bulk RNA-seq.
Analysis of single cell WGS results revealed similar levels of observed somatic mutations, both SNV and small INDELs, in genomic DNA after separation from RNA and without separation. Spectra of identified somatic SNVs as well as distribution of insertions and deletions also remained similar between these two cohorts. While we observed more variance in genomic coverage in the separated cells than in the non-separated ones, the resulting WGS data was well qualified for further analysis and accuracy of variant calling was not affected.
Thus, we described a simplified method for single cell DNA/RNA separation allowing their concurrent analysis and demonstrated that the separation procedure per se does not influence observed gene expression patterns, mutation frequency and spectra. Of note, the manual version of the CellRaft method is also available that makes this approach applicable in virtually any laboratory. These open up new possibilities to study the direct relation between mutations and their effect on gene expression in a wide range of cells. Moreover, we also successfully used the DNA fraction as input for bisulfite treatment for the assessment of DNA methylation pattern after a previously published protocol for single cells [12] allowing to directly investigate the regulation of gene expression in a particular cell in a comprehensive manner. Taken together we present a powerful tool for studying single cells for a refined insight on processes in any given cell.
Limitations
We do acknowledge that the research here presented is purely a method and does not show any biological functions. Yet we believe that it has great applicational value and can be utilized for a broad range of single cell experiments to evaluate the relationship between gene expression and mutations or methylation of DNA. The protocol presented here requires hands-on time and certain quality checks that may not be automated such as verification of placement of a single raft in a tube via microscopic inspection. However, this is not severely impacting the number of cells that can be processed at once. At this moment sequencing costs for WGS remain rather high and thus limiting the number of cells analyzed.
Materials and Methods
Cell culture
Commercially available IMR90 human lung fibroblasts (ATCC) were cultured in EMEM (ATCC) supplemented with 10% FBS (Gibco) and 1% Pen/Strep (Gibco) at 37°C, 3% O2 and 10% CO2. Cell viability, apoptosis rate and cell number were assessed with the Guava EasyCyte cytometer. The CellRaft array was prepared following the manufacturer’s instruction and washed three times for 3 min with warm PBS before addition of cell suspension. 1000 cells were seeded in 1ml for one CellRaft array. Cells were allowed to settle for 3–4 h at 37 °C before isolation. Before isolation the raft was carefully washed with warm medium to remove potential debris and dead cells.
DNA/RNA separation
Single cells were isolated using the CellRaft AIR system (Cell Microsystems) and individual rafts containing one cell were deposited in PCR tubes with 2.5ul PBS. After isolation, tubes were quickly checked under a microscope to ensure proper deposition of the raft into the tube. Then tubes were put on wet-ice and 9 µl freshly prepared hypotonic lysis buffer (HLB) was added. The HLB composition was 0.2% Triton X-100 (Sigma-Aldrich) and 0.5% RNAse Inhibitor (Takara) in nuclease-free water [10]. Tubes containing cells and HLB were briefly spun and incubated for 10 min at room temperature. 2 min before incubation time was over, tubes were briefly spun again and placed in magnetic stand. The supernatant was transferred to a new tube and placed immediately on dry ice. 2.5 µl PBS were added to the remaining cell raft and then also placed on dry ice. Tubes with DNA and RNA respectively were stored at – 80 °C until further processing.
Library preparation from single cells
For RNA sequencing, cDNA was prepared using the Smart seq 4 kit (Takara) using manufacturer recommended protocol. Briefly, the RNA of the cytosolic fraction(11µl) was used as input for conversion. The product was quantified via Qubit (ThermoFisher Scientific) and quality was assessed using a HS5000 screen tape on the TapeStation (Agilent). Following this, sequencing libraries were prepared utilizing the Nextera XT kit (Illumina) with a 4min tagmentation step and 13 cycles of amplification followed by a purification using AMPure beads (Beckman Coulter). Libraries for whole genome sequencing (WGS) were prepared according to the previously described scMDA protocol using a NEBNext Ultra II FS kit (NEB) [4]. For quality control purposes, a locus drop out test (LDO) was performed using primers and SYBR reagent [13]. Library size was assessed with a TapeStation (Agilent) using HS5000 screen tape for quality control of cDNA and HS1000 screen tape for all final libraries. All RNA-Seq and WGS libraries were sequenced on an Illumina HiSeq platform by Novogene Corp Inc., CA.
Computational analysis
For RNA-Seq processing, paired-end 150 bp raw reads were first trimmed using Trim Galore [14] and quality control performed using FastQC [15], STAR [16] was used for alignment, duplicates were removed using Picard (http://broadinstitute.github.io/picard/) and RSEM [17] was used for quantification. Gene level counts and effective lengths were extracted using tximport [18] into the R environment. Genes with evidence of consistent expression, those with at least 3 counts in all bulk samples or single cells of the same condition, were used for downstream analysis. Pseudo bulk samples were created by summing counts across cells of the same condition. Transcripts per million (TPM) were calculated for bulk and pseudo bulk samples after normalization using effective gene lengths.
For WGS processing, paired-end reads were trimmed using Trim Galore and quality control performed using FastQC. Alignment was performed with BWA MEM [19] and variants were called using SCcaller [4].
Availability of data and materials
We uploaded our data sets to publicly available servers and are currently awaiting accession numbers. Raw reads will be available here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra under PRJNA975175.
References
Maslov AY, Vijg J. Genome instability, cancer and aging. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2009;1790(10):963–9.
Vijg J, Dong X. Pathogenic mechanisms of somatic mutation and genome mosaicism in aging. Cell. 2020;182(1):12–23.
Gundry M, Li W, Maqbool SB, Vijg J. Direct, genome-wide assessment of DNA mutations in single cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40(5):2032–40.
Dong X, Zhang L, Milholland B, Lee M, Maslov AY, Wang T, et al. Accurate identification of single-nucleotide variants in whole-genome-amplified single cells. Nat Methods. 2017;14(5):491–3.
Brazhnik K, Sun S, Alani O, Kinkhabwala M, Wolkoff AW, Maslov AY, et al. Single-cell analysis reveals different age-related somatic mutation profiles between stem and differentiated cells in human liver. Sci Adv. 2020;6(5):2659.
Zhang L, Dong X, Lee M, Maslov AY, Wang T, Vijg J. Single-cell whole-genome sequencing reveals the functional landscape of somatic mutations in B lymphocytes across the human lifespan. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2019;116(18):9014–9.
Hou Y, Guo H, Cao C, Li X, Hu B, Zhu P, et al. Single-cell triple omics sequencing reveals genetic, epigenetic, and transcriptomic heterogeneity in hepatocellular carcinomas. Cell Res. 2016;26(3):304–19.
Yaşargil MG, Abdulrauf SI. Surgery of Intraventricular Tumors. Neurosurgery. 2008;62(Supplement 3):SHC1029–41.
Li W, Calder RB, Mar JC, Vijg J. Single-cell transcriptogenomics reveals transcriptional exclusion of ENU-mutated alleles. Mutat Res. 2015;772:55–62. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241516570
Gonzalez LF, Crawford NR, Horgan MA, Deshmukh P, Zabramski JM, Spetzler RF. Working Area and Angle of Attack in Three Cranial Base Approaches: Pterional, Orbitozygomatic, and Maxillary Extension of the Orbitozygomatic Approach. Neurosurgery. 2002;51(6):1527–1527.
Zhang L, Lee M, Maslov AY, Montagna C, Vijg J, Dong X. Analyzing somatic mutations by single-cell whole-genome sequencing. Nat Protoc. 2024;19(2):487–516.
Gravina S, Dong X, Yu B, Vijg J. Single-cell genome-wide bisulfite sequencing uncovers extensive heterogeneity in the mouse liver methylome. Genome Biol. 2016;17(1):150.
Gundry M, Vijg J. Direct mutation analysis by high-throughput sequencing: from germline to low-abundant, somatic variants. Mutat Res. 2012;729(1–2):1–15.
Felix Krueger FJ, Ewels P, Afyounian E, Schuster-Boeckler B. FelixKrueger/TrimGalore: v0.6.7 DOI via Zenodo (067). 2021. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo5127899.
Team L, Sacha M, Pierre R, Pina-Martins J, Sallou J, Burdette P. FastQt 0.2.3: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. 2017. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo824550.
Dobin A, Davis CA, Schlesinger F, Drenkow J, Zaleski C, Jha S, et al. STAR: ultrafast universal RNA-seq aligner. Bioinformatics. 2013;29(1):15–21.
Li B, Dewey CN. RSEM: accurate transcript quantification from RNA-Seq data with or without a reference genome. BMC Bioinf. 2011;12:323.
Soneson C, Love MI, Robinson MD. Differential analyses for RNA-seq: transcript-level estimates improve gene-level inferences. F1000Res. 2015;4:1521.
Li HW. Aligning sequence reads, clone sequences and assembly contigs with BWA-MEM. arXiv: Genomics. 2013.
Funding
This work was funded by the National Institutes of Health grant P01 AG017242 (to J.V.), National Institutes of Health grant U01 ES029519 (to J.V.), National Institutes of Health grant U01 HL145560 (to J.V.), National Institutes of Health grant P01 AG047200 (to J.V.), and Antonov’s Foundation grant (to A.Y.M.).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
A.Y.M. and J.H. wrote the paper. J.H. and M.L. performed the experiments. R.C. performed computational analysis. J.V., R.C. and M.L. revised all drafts of the paper. A.Y.M. and J.V. supervised the study.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
A.Y.M., M.L., and J.V. are cofounders of SingulOmics Corp. A.Y.M., and J.V. are cofounders of Mutagentech Inc. All the other authors declare that they do not have any competing interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Heid, J., Cutler, R., Lee, M. et al. Concurrent analysis of genome and transcriptome in one single cell. BMC Res Notes 17, 267 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-024-06927-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-024-06927-0