Search

Graphical abstract Abstract Single-cell parallel sequencing allows us to explore how genetic and epigenetic variations correlate of gene expression in the same cell. Beads-based approach and non-beads-based approach are the two present methods to separate DNA and RNA from the same cell. However, systematic difference between the two methods are lacking. In our study, we compared the performances of the two methods using transcriptome and methylome profiles generated simultaneously from single mouse oocytes. Our results showed that the beads-based approach could capture maximum quantity of mRNA but loss of DNA was inevitable, while the non-beads-based approach could obtain more DNA due to the undamaged nucleus obtained but at a cost of partial loss of mRNA. As the sequencing coverage of methylome sequencing in a single cell was relatively low, single-cell whole genome bisulfite sequencing (scWGBS) was preferable to generate the methylome map in single-cell parallel sequencing in comparison to single-cell reduced representation bisulfite sequencing (scRRBS). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to compare the two methods of single-cell parallel sequencing which offers a basic idea for deciding between the two methods and a direction of single-cell parallel sequencing development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy). This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief. It has been brought to our attention that the authors of the article "Parallel bimodal single-cell sequencing of transcriptome and methylome provides molecular and translational insights on oocyte maturation and maternal aging" cannot agree on who should be listed as an author of the article. Further inquiry by the journal revealed that the authorship was also changed at the revision stages of the article without notifying the handling Editor, which is contrary to the journal policy on changes to authorship. The journal considers this unacceptable practice, and the Editor-in-Chief decided to retract the article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]