Impact of whole genome amplification on analysis of copy number variants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large-scale copy number variants (CNVs) have recently been recognized to play a role in human genome variation and disease. Approaches for analysis of CNVs in small samples such as microdissected tissues can be confounded by limited amounts of material. To facilitate analyses of such samples, whole genome amplification (WGA) techniques were developed. In this study, we explored the impact of Phi29 multiple-strand displacement amplification on detection of CNVs using oligonucleotide arrays. We extracted DNA from fresh frozen lymph node samples and used this for amplification and analysis on the Affymetrix Mapping 500k SNP array platform. We demonstrated that the WGA procedure introduces hundreds of potentially confounding CNV artifacts that can obscure detection of bona fide variants. Our analysis indicates that many artifacts are reproducible, and may correlate with proximity to chromosome ends and GC content. Pair-wise comparison of amplified products considerably reduced the number of apparent artifacts and partially restored the ability to detect real CNVs. Our results suggest WGA material may be appropriate for copy number analysis when amplified samples are compared to similarly amplified samples and that only the CNVs with the greatest significance values detected by such comparisons are likely to be representative of the unamplified samples.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".