It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Cellular DNA barcoding has become a popular approach to study heterogeneity of cell populations and to identify clones with differential response to cellular stimuli. However, there is a lack of reliable methods for statistical inference of differentially responding clones. Here, we used mixtures of DNA‐barcoded cell pools to generate a realistic benchmark read count dataset for modelling a range of outcomes of clone‐tracing experiments. By accounting for the statistical properties intrinsic to the DNA barcode read count data, we implemented an improved algorithm that results in a significantly lower false‐positive rate, compared to current RNA‐seq data analysis algorithms, especially when detecting differentially responding clones in experiments with strong selection pressure. Building on the reliable statistical methodology, we illustrate how multidimensional phenotypic profiling enables one to deconvolute phenotypically distinct clonal subpopulations within a cancer cell line. The mixture control dataset and our analysis results provide a foundation for benchmarking and improving algorithms for clone‐tracing experiments.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
; Bulanova, Daria 2 ; Timonen, Sanna 1 ; Wennerberg, Krister 2
; Aittokallio, Tero 3
1 Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), HiLIFE, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
2 Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), HiLIFE, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland; Biotech Research and Innovation Centre (BRIC) and Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Stem Cell Biology (DanStem), University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
3 Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), HiLIFE, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland; Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Turku, Turku, Finland; Department of Cancer Genetics, Institute for Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Oslo Centre for Biostatistics and Epidemiology (OCBE), Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway




