Published online March 17, 2006
Nucleic Acids Research, 2006, Vol. 34, No. 5 e42
doi:10.1093/nar/gkl050

An improved single-cell cDNA amplification
method for efficient high-density oligonucleotide
microarray analysis
Kazuki Kurimoto1, Yukihiro Yabuta1, Yasuhide Ohinata1, Yukiko Ono1,4, Kenichiro D. Uno2,
Rikuhiro G. Yamada3, Hiroki R. Ueda2,3 and Mitinori Saitou1,5,6,*
1

Laboratory for Mammalian Germ Cell Biology, 2Functional Genomics Subunit and 3Laboratory for Systems Biology,
Center for Developmental Biology, RIKEN Kobe Institute, 2-2-3 Minatojima-minamimachi, Chuo-ku, Kobe, Hyogo
650-0047, Japan, 4Department of BioScience, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo 156-8502, Japan,5
Precursory Research for Embryonic Science and Technology, Japan Science and Technology Agency,
4-1-8 Hon-cho, Kawaguchi, Saitama 332-0012, Japan and 6Laboratory of Molecular Cell Biology andDevelopment, Graduate School of Biostudies, Kyoto University, Oiwake-cho, Kitashirakawa, Sakyo-ku,
Kyoto 606-8502, Japan
Received January 17, 2006; Revised February 3, 2006; Accepted February 23, 2006

ABSTRACT
A systems-level understanding of a small but essential population of cells in development or adulthood(e.g. somatic stem cells) requires accurate quantitative monitoring of genome-wide gene expression,
ideally from single cells. We report here a strategy
to globally amplify mRNAs from single cells for highly
quantitative high-density oligonucleotide microarray
analysis that combines a small number of directional
PCR cycles with subsequent linear amplification.
Using this strategy, both the representation of gene
expression profiles and reproducibility between individual experiments are unambiguously improved
from the original method, along with high coverage
and accuracy. The immediate application of thismethod to single cells in the undifferentiated innercell masses of mouse blastocysts at embryonic day(E) 3.5 revealed the presence of two populations ofcells, one with primitive endoderm (PE) expression
and the other with pluripotent epiblast-like gene
expression. The genes expressed differentiallybetween these two populations were well preservedin morphologically differentiated PE and epiblast in
the embryos one day later (E4.5), demonstrating thatthe method successfully detects subtle but essential
differences in gene expression at the single-cell level
among seemingly homogeneous cell populations.

This study provides a strategy to analyze biophysicalevents in medicine as well as in neural, stem cell anddevelopmental biology, where small numbers of
distinctive or diseased cells play critical roles.

INTRODUCTION
Accurate quantitative monitoring of gene expression provides
an essential first step towards understanding the properties orstates of cells of interest. The recent completion of the genome
sequencing of many organisms and the development of
microarray platforms encompassing whole-genome information have created unprecedented opportunities to performgenome-wide gene expression profiling in various biologicalcontexts, including some disease states, thus contributing to
the understanding of life at the systems level (1–3). However,these analyses often require relatively large quantities of total
RNA (nanogram to microgram order, at least above the1000-cell level) as starting materials (4–6). It remains
considerably difficult to carry out these analyses from smaller
samples, especially from single cells. However, analyses ofsmall numbers of cells are very often required in various
aspects of biological study, including developmental
biology—where specific subsets of rare cells play essential
roles—and stem cell biology in adult tissues. Moreover, theimportance of the ability to analyze biological processes at thesingle-cell level was demonstrated recently in a typical case,where single-cell analysis revealed a signaling network’s*To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: +81 78 306 3376; Fax: +81 78 306 3377; Email: saitou@cdb.riken.jp
The authors wish it to be known that, in their opinion, the first two authors should be regarded as joint First Authors
 The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
The online version of this article has been published under an open access model. Users are entitled to use, reproduce, disseminate, or display the open accessversion of this article for non-commercial purposes provided that: the original authorship is properly and fully attributed; the Journal and Oxford University Press
are attributed as the original place of publication with the correct citation details given; if an article is subsequently reproduced or disseminated not in its entirety but
only in part or as a derivative work this must be clearly indicated. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

e42

Nucleic Acids Research, 2006, Vol. 34, No. 5

essential properties, which population measurements had notbeen able to reveal (7).
Two major strategies enable the amplification of cDNAs
from single cells: exponential amplification (8,9) and multipleround linear amplification (10–12). Apparently, regarding thegeneral nature of amplification, each method has its advantages and disadvantages compared with the other (13–15),
and thus these two strategies are essentially complementaryin gene expression profiling. However, especially whenmRNAs from single cells are to be amplified, exponential
amplification has the advantages of amplification efficiency
and methodological simplicity in comparison with multipleround linear amplification protocols (13,16,17). It should also
be noted that a fully validated method for genome-wide
microarray analysis of a single-cell transcriptome using
multiple-round linear amplification has yet to be described.
The exponential amplification from single cells tags the
30 ends of RT products with poly(dA) so that the cDNAs
can be amplified with a single poly(dT)-tailed primer in a
nondirectional manner. Exponential amplification methods
amplify a wide range of mRNAs and have been used mainly
to clone highly expressed genes (9,18–22), and have been
applied recently to both cDNA and oligonucleotide microarrays (13,20,21). However, these methods (13,21) still introduce by-products, including amplified primer concatamers orsequences without polyadenylation signals derived frommispriming on either RNA or genomic DNA template, andthey produce both systematic biases and random errors in gene
representation (13,23) (see also Results). These flaws need tobe reduced in order to achieve a more quantitatively accurate
microarray analysis of the transcriptome.
Here, we describe a method to directionally amplify cDNAs
highly representatively from single cells using relatively few
PCR cycles. The amplified products are universally applicableto oligonucleotide microarrays after isothermal production ofcRNAs from the 50 -terminally positioned T7 promoter, using
the standard labeling protocol supplied by the manufacturersof prevalent microarray platforms. The amplified products
showed high coverage and accuracy, with higher representation and reproducibility compared with those amplified by
Brady and Iscove’s original method (8), which was utilizedby Tietjen et al. (21). We amplified cDNAs from single cells ofmorphologically undifferentiated inner cell masses (ICMs) ofmouse blastocysts at embryonic day (E) 3.5 and applied thesecDNAs to GeneChip microarrays, which identified the gene
expression profiles indicating overt differentiation of themorphologically identical cells toward a fate of either primitive endoderm (PE) or epiblast. This method is generally
applicable to many important biological questions that require
accurate transcriptome analysis at a single-cell resolution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
cDNA synthesis from single cells or single-cell level
total RNA
Total RNA was purified from ES cells using the RNeasy Minikit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). For the preparation of diluted
RNA, we serially diluted the total RNA of 1000 ng/ml toconcentrations of 2.5 ng/ml, 250 pg/ml and 25 pg/ml. Then,

PAGE 2 OF 17

0.4 ml (10 pg) of the final dilution (25 pg/ml) was directly added
to the single-cell lysis buffer (see below).
Mouse embryos at E3.5 blastocyst (C57BL/6) were collected in DMEM (Gibco, Gaithersburg, MD) with 0.5% BSA.
Embryonic fragments containing ICM were cut out by a glass
needle and incubated with 0.05% trypsin and 0.5 mM EDTA
for 7 min, followed by dissociation into single cells by a mouth
pipette. Dissociated single cells were randomly picked up for
single-cell cDNA synthesis. The entire process was performed
as quickly as possible in order to minimize the effect oftrypsin/EDTA treatment on gene expression.
The cDNA synthesis and exponential amplification procedures were modified from those in previous reports (18,24).
Single cells isolated from an embryo, or a single-cell equivalent amount of RNA, were seeded into 0.5 ml thin-walled PCR
tubes containing 4.5 ml of cell lysis buffer [1· PCR buffer II(Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA), 1.5 mM MgCl2(Applied Biosystems), 0.5% NP40, 5 mM DTT, 0.3 U/ml
Prime RNase Inhibitor (Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany),
0.3 U/ml RNAguard RNase Inhibitor (Amersham Biosciences,
Piscataway, NJ), 0.2 ng/ml primer V1(dT)24 and 0.05 mM eachof dATP, dCTP, dGTP and dTTP], containing an appropriate
amounts of spike RNAs (see below). The sequence of the V1(dT)24 primer was 50 -ATATGGATCCGGCGCGCCGTCGACTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT-30 . All the primers
described in this paper were purchased from Operon Biotechnology (Huntsville, AL) or Hokkaido System Science(Sapporo, Japan). After 15 s centrifugation, cell lysis was
performed at 70 C for 90 s, and the reaction tubes were immediately put on ice for 1 min. A 0.3 ml volume of RT mixture[133.3 U/ml SuperScript III (Invitrogen), 3.33 U/ml RNAguard
RNase Inhibitor (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA), and 1.1–1.3 mg/ml
T4 gene 32 protein (Roche, Basel, Switzerland)] was added toeach reaction tube. The reaction mixture was incubated at
50 C for 5 min and heat-inactivated at 70 C for 10 min.
The tubes were immediately put on ice for 1 min, and after
15 s centrifugation, 1.0 ml of Exonuclease I mixture [1·Exonuclease I buffer (Takara, Shiga, Japan) and 0.5 U/ml
Exonuclease I (Takara)] was added to each tube. The reaction
mixture was incubated at 37 C for 30 min and heat-inactivated
at 80 C for 25 min. The reaction tubes were then put on ice for
1 min. Next, 6 ml of terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase(TdT) mixture [1· PCR buffer II, 1.5 mM MgCl2, 3 mM
dATP, 0.1 U/ml RNaseH (Invitrogen) and 0.75 U/ml TdT(Invitrogen)] was added to each tube, and the mixture wasincubated at 37 C for 15 min followed by heat-inactivation at
70 C for 10 min. The synthesized poly(dA)-tailed RT productin each tube (12 ml) was divided into four 0.2 ml thin-walled
PCR tubes (3 ml each). Then, 19 ml of PCR mixture I [1·
ExTaq buffer, 0.25 mM each of dATP, dCTP, dGTP anddTTP, 0.02 mg/ml primer V3 (dT)24, and 0.05 U/ml ExTaq
Hot Start Version (Takara)] was added to each tube for the
first round of PCR: 95 C for 3 min, 50 C for 2 min and 72 C
for 3 min. The sequence of V3 (dT)24 was 50 -ATATCTCGAGGGCGCGCCGGATCCTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT-30 . The tubes were immediately put on ice for
1 min, and 19 ml of PCR mixture II was added, with acomposition almost the same as that of PCR buffer I but
with primer V1 (dT)24 replacing primer V3 (dT)24. A dropof mineral oil (Sigma-Aldrich, St Louis, MO) was thenadded to each tube. A 20-cycle PCR amplification was then

PAGE 3 OF 17
performed according to the following schedule: 95 C for 30 s,
67 C for 1 min and 72 C for 3 min with a 6 s extension per
cycle. The amplified cDNA was purified with a QIAquick PCR
purification kit (Qiagen) and dissolved in 50 ml of buffer EB(10 mM Tris–HCl, pH 8.5).
The resultant cDNA was subjected to another amplification
step to allocate the T7 promoter sequence at the 50 -terminus. A
49.4 ml volume of PCR mixture III [1· ExTaq buffer, 0.25 mM
each of dATP, dCTP, dGTP and dTTP, 0.02 mg/ml primer
T7-V1 (50 -GGCCAGTGAATTGTAATACGACTCACTATA
GGGAGGCGGATATGGATCCGGCGCGCCGTCGAC-30 ),0.02 mg/ml primer V3 (dT)24 and 0.05 U/ml ExTaq Hot Start
Version] was added to each of eight 0.2-ml thin-walled PCR
tubes containing 0.63 ml of the 20 cycle amplified cDNA. A
nine-cycle amplification was then performed according to thefollowing schedule: 95 C for 5 min 30 s, 64 C for 1 min and72 C for 5 min 18 s for the first cycle; and 95 C for 30 s, 67 C
for 1 min and 72 C for 5 min 18 s with an extension of 6 s per
cycle for another eight cycles. The products were mixed
together after the reaction, purified with a QIAquick PCR
purification kit, and dissolved in 30 ml of buffer EB. The PCR
product was purified with 2% agarose gel electrophoresis toremove by-product DNA shorter than 300 bp. The cDNA wasextracted from a gel fragment with a QIAquick Gel Extraction kit (Qiagen) and dissolved in 35 ml of buffer EB. A 47.8
ml volume of PCR mixture III was added to each of four 0.2
ml thin-walled PCR tubes containing 2.2 ml of the purified
cDNA, and an additional one-cycle PCR (95 C for 5 min 30
s, 67 C for 1 min and 72 C for 16 min) was performed. The
products were mixed together after the reaction, purified with
the QIAquick PCR purification kit, and dissolved in 30 ml ofbuffer EB.
To prepare the spike RNAs, Escherichia coli cells containing plasmids encoding poly(A)-tailed Bacillus subtilis lys, phe,thr, and dap genes were purchased from the American Type
Culture Collection (ATCC, Manassas, VA; the ATCC numbers were 87482, 87483, 87484 and 87486, respectively). The
sense-strand RNAs were synthesized with the MEGAscript T3
kit (Ambion, Austin, TX) and purified with the RNeasy Mini
kit. An appropriate amount of spike RNA mixture was added
to the cell lysis buffer and to 5 mg (5 · 105 cells) of total RNA
for the microarray experiments, so that the reaction mixture
contained poly(A)-tailed Lys, Dap, Phe and Thr RNAs at
1000, 100, 20 and 5 copies per cell, respectively.
The single-cell cDNA synthesis with the original protocol
was performed exactly as described elsewhere (21).
Quantitative real-time PCR analysis
Quantitative real-time PCR (Q-PCR hereafter) was performed
using the 7900 Real Time PCR System (Applied Biosystems)
according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The sequences ofthe primers are listed in Table 1. The doubling efficiencies ofall primers were measured (Table 1). Using these efficiencies,
the threshold cycle (Ct) values were corrected to calculate theexpression levels.
Microarray hybridization and data processing
Eight independently amplified cDNA samples and ES cellular
total RNA (5 mg in each of eight individual tubes) were
subjected to the One-Cycle Target Labeling procedure for

Nucleic Acids Research, 2006, Vol. 34, No. 5e42biotin labeling by in vitro transcription (IVT) (Affymetrix,
Santa Clara, CA). The cRNA was subsequently fragmented
and hybridized to the GeneChip Mouse Genome 430 2.0 array(Affymetrix) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The
microarray image data were processed with the GeneChip
Scanner 3000 (Affymetrix) to generate CEL data. The CELdata were then subjected to analysis with dChip software (25),which has the advantage of normalizing and processing
multiple datasets simultaneously. Data obtained from theeight nonamplified controls from ES cells, from the eight
independently amplified samples from the diluted ES cellular
RNA, and from the amplified cDNA samples from 20 single
ICM cells were normalized separately within the respective
groups, according to the program’s default setting. The modelbased expression indices (MBEI) were calculated using the
PM/MM difference mode with log-2 transformation of signal
intensity and truncation of low values to zero. The absolute
calls (Present, Marginal and Absent) were calculated by theAffymetrix Microarray Software 5.0 (MAS 5.0) algorithm
using the dChip default setting. The expression levels of
only the Present probes were considered for all quantitative
analyses described below. The GEO accession number for the
microarray data is GSE4309.
Calculation of coverage and accuracy
The true positive was defined as probes called Present in atleast six of the eight nonamplified controls (see also Results),
and the true expression levels were defined as the log-averaged
expression levels of the Present probes. The definition ofcoverage is (the number of truly positive probes detected inamplified samples)/(the number of truly positive probes). The
definition of accuracy is (the number of truly positive probes
detected in amplified samples)/(the number of probes detected
in amplified samples). The expression levels of the amplified
and nonamplified samples were divided by the class interval of
20.5 (20, 20.5, 21, 21.5 . . .), where accuracy and coverage were
calculated. These expression level bins were also used toanalyze the frequency distribution of the detected probes.
Microarray data comparison
The dataset from a previous single-cell microarray study[Supplementary Data set S6 (21)] was used for the comparison
between the method applied by Tietjen et al. (21) and our own.
In that previous study, the expression levels (average difference values; ADV) and absolute calls were generated by theAffymetrix GeneChip System v3.2 algorithm, and the default
setting of the data analysis parameters was changed to lower
the stringency of the Absolute call in order to compensate forthe lack of full-length transcripts in their single-cell cDNAs(21). The expression levels of only the Present probes wereconsidered for all the quantitative analyses. All the data wereanalyzed with Microsoft Excel. The datasets of the amplified
samples (10 pg; N ¼ 6) were normalized so that the mean
ADVs became equal; the mean ADVs were 3008.6 and4196.0 before and after the normalization, respectively. The
true positive was defined as the Present probes in the undiluted
total RNA (tot Hu RNA; N ¼ 1). The ADV bins were normalized so that the mean expression levels of the data became
equal to that of our present data (see the paragraph below) tocompare the probe distributions, coverage and accuracy ofe42

Nucleic Acids Research, 2006, Vol. 34, No. 5

PAGE 4 OF 17

Table 1. Gene-specific primers used for screening and Q-PCR of single-cell cDNA
Gene

50 primer

30 primer

Aa

Ba

Aqp8
AV101904
BB242234
BC017612
Bcl2l14
Bcl7a
c-Myc
Cubn
Dap
Dnmt1
Dnmt3aDnmt3bDnmt3l
Eras
Esg1
Ezh2
Fgf4
Fgfr2
Foxh1
fragilis
G9a
Gapdh
Gata4
Gata6
Hhex
Hnf4a
Klf2
Jak1
Lama1
Lefty1
Lys
nanog
Ndg1
nodal
Oct4
Pdgfra
Pfkl
Phe
Prkcz
Pthr1
Rex1
Rhebl1
Rhpn2
Runx1
Serpinh1
Soat1
Sox17
Sox2
SpiC
Stella
Thr
Tiar
Tnap
Tyk2
vHnf1
Yy1

TTGCGAGAGGGCAGGGATTAACAGATTGTGTTGATTGACCCTTCC
GGCAATTACGATAAGGAAACCCTTTA
GGGTGATGCTGTTGGGATCATGAGGGACGTGGACACCAGA
GGATGGCGGCTACACATTCCAAGGAGAACGGTTCCTTCTGAC
ATCTCTGCCCACGCCATCA
CCAGACCGCGGCCTAATAATG
GGCCATGGCTGACACTAAGCTG
GACTCGCGTGCAATAACCTTAG
CTCGCAAGGTGTGGGCTTTTGTAAC
CCAGGGCAGATTTCTTCCTAAGGTCGTAGCTGTGGCTGCTCTGTAGAAGGAGTGCTGAAGCTGGAGG
TCAGGAACCTTGAGTACTGTGG
AAGGCACCTGCCCTGTTCTG
CCTTCTGCCCGGGTTACACAGACCTGCTCTGTGATCTAGACTGGTCCTCAGCATCCTGATGG
CTTCTTCAGCTCCAGGGACATCATGAATACGGCTACAGCAACAGG
CCTAAACCTTACTGGCCGTAGC
CACAGTCCCCGTTCTTTTACTG
ACTTGGCTCCCGGTGTCTGTT
AGAACCTTTCAGGGTTCAGGAG
TCGAGGCTAGATGCCTTGTGAACCGAATGATCAGCTGCATAGC
ACAACGGTGCCGGAAGGATATGTCGCTGAATCTGGGCTGAG
GCCATATCGGCTCGCAAATCCTTTCACCTATTAAGGTGCTTGC
TCAGCAATGGACATTGACTTTCGAGCCACTGTCCAGTTCTCCAGGATGCTGTGAGCCAAGGCAAGGTTTCCAGGGCATGGGTGAGGAATCTGCGGCTGATGCTGATGAGCTCTAGGCCCAAAACGACCGACCAGTCCGAATTTGAAGGCTTTG
GCCCAATGGTGTCACACACG
TCCATGGCATAGTTCCAACAGTGGGCACACAGTATGGCACTCTGACAGAGTCACGGTTGACACATACTGAGCTGAGCGCCATCG
CCCGAGCCCTCTTCAGTCTTCTGTCTAATGCGTAGTGACTTTCCTTG
TTCTGTACACTTTAATGAGGCTGTTCCATGAGAGCAAGTACTGGCAAGGGCAACCGGAAACCCATGAC
AGGCTCGAAGGAAATGAGTTTG
GCCGATGCCGTAAAAGCAAGGATTGTAATTCACCACAGGCTGTACTCCACTGGCCTGTCTCTG
ACACACACAGGAAGGCCATTTG
GCAGTATTGTCATGATGGCTCTCTTCAGTTACAGAAAGTGGTGCTCTGTGCATGAATTGGGTTCCA
CCACCTCTTAGCTAAATTGTCTTGAGCAAATAAAGCCACGCCACA
TCAAATCCCATCAAGCACAGAGATCCCGAAGCCCAGCATTCTACCTCTACCAGGTCCTCTGCGATAGCTGAAGCTTACAGTCCCAAAGACCACCAGGCTCTGCCTTCACGCTTCTTCCACCAGTGCAGCACCTGCACAGTGGCAGATCTG
GGTCACTTTCCCTCACTCTGG
CTGGGCATCTGTCATCTTTGCACC
TGAGCTGCACAGAGGCATCCGATGTCTGTGGTAACTTGGTCG
CAGCTTAACCTGCATCCAGGTCCTTTGCAGCTGGTGAGAAGGC
GGGAGCTAGCTGGCTGAAGAAAGATGCTGGGCTTTTGCCATC
ATGCTGTACCAGGAAAGGAGC
AGGGTGAAGCACTTCAGGACCGAATGCTTGCACTTCTCAGAGC
CTCTTGCTCAGTGTCCTTGCTGACAATGTTAACGGGTTGTGGAGGTGGTACAGGCGTCAAGAGTGTGAGTCAGTTTCCCTGCCTGTGCCACAGAGAGCTCTAGCAAAGAAACGAAGCAGGCGGCAGAACATTGAGATTTCAGGGCAAGGCGGAATTCCCGTCCACAGTCTAGCAAAGCCAGTATTGCCTAGAACGAATGCCGAAACCTCCTCTGGCATCGGTTCATCATGGTAC
CCCAGCATTGCCTATACCAGAGAGTGTCTGCCAAGCATACATCTC
GGCTCCTGATCAACAGCATCAC
AAGGAAGCACACGGGTGGAC
CCGGGAACGCAGGAACAGTA
TCCGGTTTTAGTCGGACGTGTCACAGGCGTGTCCACAACACCGTCGTCCTTGGGAACTGTCTAACTGATTTTCTGCCGTATGC
GGGTGGGTCCTGGGTAATCACAGGGATAGCGGGCACACTTTC
CCTCCGGGATTCTTCCTGG
CATGCACTGTCTCCCAGCTCGAAGCCAGCTTCTGGAGCCTTA
TTGTGGGAAGTGGGATCAAG
CCAACGATATCAACCTGCATGGTGGAGAACAGCCTCGCTGAATCCTAATTCTTCCCGATTTTCGCAGCTCAGGCACAAGCATCGGCAGAACTAGAAGACATGTGCC
GCATCCTTGTAAACATCAGCACG
AGGGCCAGAGAGGTCAAGACAGTGCATCAGTTTGTTCGATGATGAAATAAGGCTGTGCTTACAGAGC

0.72
0.97
0.97
0.86
1.02
0.93
0.93
0.99
1.04
0.93
1.03
1.04
0.93
0.92
0.90
0.86
0.92
0.96
0.92
0.96
0.98
1.04
1.00
1.04
0.92
0.97
1.03
1.04
0.80
1.01
1.04
0.93
0.97
0.88
0.93
1.01
0.80
1.01
0.81
0.92
1.02
0.98
0.97
0.86
0.81
0.91
1.05
0.99
0.94
1.02
1.05
0.99
1.00
1.03
0.85
0.92

35.13
33.10
33.37
33.23
34.83
33.97
32.42
34.70
35.21
32.37
35.08
34.88
33.22
33.79
32.06
36.81
32.59
34.09
33.70
34.05
35.44
35.51
33.83
34.74
31.96
34.22
34.62
38.39
34.31
34.58
35.21
34.73
33.91
32.55
34.82
34.02
32.18
35.21
32.45
33.64
33.89
33.76
33.72
32.72
34.09
34.04
35.18
35.63
32.66
34.27
35.21
32.79
33.26
34.65
30.68
33.64

a
Log2 [copy number of the Q-PCR template (10ml scale reaction)] ¼ A · Ct + B.
Coefficient A represents the log2-transformed doubling efficiency of the primer set. Coefficient B represents the log2-transformed copy number of PCR productdetectable at the threshold level with SYBR green.

both studies. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient (R) was
calculated for the pair-wise comparisons of amplified samples(R2 ¼ 0.69 ± 0.06). The R2 values were also calculated tocompare the log-averaged ADVs of the amplified samples
and the undiluted total RNA, and the best value wasobtained under the definition of detection in which>1/6 amplified samples are called Present (0.41 forlog-averaged ADVs). Outliers in the undiluted sample(M11147_at, U57341_r_at, X01677_f_at, X00351_f_at)were excluded in this analysis because they severely affect
the R2 values (R2 ¼ 0.32 when outliers are included).
To make the data obtained in this study comparable withthose in the previous study, we re-calculated the expression
levels of our data using the MAS 5.0 algorithm using the Affy

PAGE 5 OF 17

package of the Bioconductor program suite for the R package(http://www.bioconductor.org) (26), instead of Li and Wang’s
model-based algorithm (25). The data normalization for theamplified and nonamplified samples (N ¼ 8 each) was
performed as described for the previous data; the means of
ADV before and after the normalization were 3533.2/3512.7
and 1629.2/1634.7, respectively. All the statistics werere-calculated using these data.
Analysis of gene expression profiles of E3.5 blastocysts
The unsupervised clustering and class neighbor analyses of the
microarray data from E3.5 blastocysts were performed using
GenePattern software (http://www.broad.mit.edu/cancer/
software/genepattern/), which performs the signal-to-noise
ratio analysis/T-test in conjunction with the permutation test
to preclude the contribution of any sample variability, including those from methodology and/or biopsy, at high confidence.
The analyses were conducted on the 14 128 probes for which
at least 6 out of 20 single ICM cells provided Present calls andat least 1 out of 20 samples provided expression levels >20
copies per cell. The expression levels calculated for probeswith Absent/Marginal calls were truncated to zero.
To calculate relative gene expression levels, the Ct values
obtained with Q-PCR analyses were corrected using the efficiencies of the individual primer pairs quantified either withwhole mouse genome (BD Biosciences) or plasmids that
contain gene fragments (Table 1). The relative expression
levels were further transformed into copy numbers with acalibration line calculated using the spike RNAs included in
the reaction mixture (log10[expression level] ¼ 1.05 ·log10[copy number] + 4.65).
The Chi-square test for independence was performed toevaluate the association of gene expressions with Gata4,
which well represents the difference between cluster 1 andcluster 2 determined by the unsupervised clustering and whichis restricted to PE at later stages. The expression levels of
individual genes measured with Q-PCR were classified into
three categories: high (>100 copies per cell), middle(10–100 copies per cell), and low (<10 copies per cell).
The Chi-square and P-values for independence from Gata4
expression were calculated based on this classification. Chisquared was defined as follows: c2 ¼ SS (n fij  fi fj)2/n fi fj,
where i and j represent expression level categories (high, middle or low) of the reference (Gata4) and the target gene,
respectively; fi, fj, and fij represent the observed frequency
of categories i, j and ij, respectively; and n represents the
sample number (n ¼ 24). The degrees of freedom were
defined as (r  1) · (c  1), where r and c represent available
numbers of expression level categories of Gata4 and of thetarget gene, respectively.
RESULTS
Design and improvement of the new method
To improve the original exponential amplification methodfrom single-cell-level mRNA, we set out to design an amplification strategy that used fewer cycles so as to reduce the riskof introducing bias, and that used two different amplification
primers so that the resultant directional cDNAs would beapplicable to further isothermal linear amplification from

Nucleic Acids Research, 2006, Vol. 34, No. 5

e42

the 50 -terminally allocated T7 promoter (Figure 1C). We
isolated total RNA from ES cells (1 · 107) and diluted it to
the single-cell level (10 pg) for use as amplification templates. Using Q-PCR, the representation and reproducibility of
amplification were examined by comparing the abundance ofgene products in unamplified cDNAs synthesized from undiluted total RNA versus that in amplified cDNAs from thediluted RNA (Figure 1A).
First, to ensure uniform amplification efficiency for all themRNA species, we set the initial RT reaction to be as short as
5 min, which resulted in PCR products within the range of
500–1500 bp (not shown). Second, to reduce the risk of
distorted representation, as delineated in Figure 1B, wedefined the number of cycles needed to obtain a sufficientamount of cDNA for microarray analysis. In an ideal amplification, the amount of cDNA doubles in each cycle. Therefore, single-cell mRNAs (0.2 pg) could be amplified up to200 ng (10 mg as total RNA) (1 · 106-fold) after a
20-cycle PCR, and thus we used 20 cycles as the initial amplification step for each experiment. Third, we found that both
systematic and random errors of amplification depend not only
on the number of cycles but also largely on the primer
sequences (data not shown). We set up >20 different primer
pairs to find an appropriate set of primers. Furthermore, after
examining >30 sequences from the amplified products, wefound significant by-product contamination; the first primer
molecules that were not annealed to mRNAs were tailed withpoly(dA) by TdT and amplified efficiently by the subsequent
PCR. Therefore, we included Exonuclease I treatment (a 30 –50 exonuclease) after reverse transcription to specificallydegrade the unreacted first primer. This treatment dramaticallyreduced the amplification of by-product, which was removed
by gel purification (Materials and Methods). In examining
40 sequences from the amplified product, we found thatnone of them contained by-product and that sense–antisenseorientation was completely preserved (Figure 2 and Table 2).
The BLAST search analysis found that 97.5% of thesequenced cDNAs (39/40) had bona fide transcript ends
(Figure 2 and Table 2). The average length of a sequenced
PCR product was 854 ± 276 bp (Figure 2 and Table 2), consistent with the observation mentioned above. Consideringthat the original method resulted in by-product occupying
70% of the amplified cDNA pool (13), the present resultshows a clear improvement in amplification. Moreover, theefficiency of the cDNA amplification was also enhanced by the
Exonuclease I treatment (data not shown). Finally, to average
the intrinsic variation during PCR (23), PCR amplification was
performed in four independent tubes, and the products weremixed together after the reaction. With all of these modifications, the final scheme of our method involved first-strand
cDNA synthesis by reverse transcription using poly(dT)tailed V1 primer, removal of unreacted V1 primers by
Exonuclease I digestion, the addition of poly(dA) to the
30 end of the first-strand cDNA by TdT, and second-strand
synthesis using another poly(dT)-tailed primer, V3, followedby PCR with the V1(dT)24 and V3(dT)24 primers in four
independent tubes (Figure 1C).
To examine the performance of our method, we compared
the representations of 23 genes typically expressed in ES cells
at widely differing levels (Gapdh, Oct4, nanog, Sox2, Ezh2,
Tiar, fragilis, Yy1, stella, Tnap, Esg1, Eras, cMyc, Foxh1,

e42

Nucleic Acids Research, 2006, Vol. 34, No. 5

PAGE 6 OF 17

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the key features of the global cDNA amplification method. (A) Evaluation system to verify representation of amplified cDNA from
diluted ES cellular RNA by Q-PCR and/or microarray. (B) Gene representation distorted during the global PCR. Diluted ES cellular RNA (10 pg) was amplified as
described elsewhere (21), and the replicates of amplification were sequentially sampled at 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40 and 44 cycles. The expression levels of Gapdh,
Eed, Ezh2, Gbx2, nanog and Oct4 were measured by Q-PCR, normalized by that of Gapdh, and represented with brown, cyan, yellow, blue, pink and green lines,
respectively. The averages of four independent experiments are plotted. (C) Schematic diagram of cDNA amplification. The mRNA and cDNA are colored pink andorange, respectively. The V1, V3 and T7 promoter sequences are represented by blue, red and green boxes, respectively. The bars above the letters represent thecomplementary sequences.

Dnmt1, Dnmt3b, G9a, Jak1A, nodal, lefty1, Tyk2, Fgf4, Rex1)
and four spike RNAs, which are artificially poly(A)-tailed
prokaryotic mRNAs that are often used as controls in microarray experiments (B.subtilis Lys, Dap, Phe and Thr RNAs of
1000, 100, 20 and 5 copies per cell, respectively) between
10 independently amplified cDNAs and nonamplified
cDNAs (synthesized from 1 mg of total RNA) (Figure 3).
We also amplified the diluted RNA using the original method(10 independent amplifications) (24) as described previously(21) and compared the amplification quality between our
method and the original one. As shown in Figure 3, with
our method, representation was generally preserved in almost
all the expression-level ranges, with small variations amongexperiments, especially for genes with greater than 20 copies
per cell. The majority of the genes were plotted between 4-folddifference lines compared with the nonamplified control ineach experiment (R2 ¼ 0.734, with 65 and 89% of thegenes plotted between 2.0- and 4.0-fold difference lines,
respectively). In sharp contrast, although the original method
was generally successful on highly expressed genes anddetected the genes in all the expression-level ranges at a
rate comparable with the new method (88%), it introduced
large variations in representation on genes with fewer thana few hundred copies per cell (R2 ¼ 0.496, with 7 and 22% of
the genes plotted between 2.0- and 4.0-fold difference lines,
respectively). These results indicate that our method amplifies

PAGE 7 OF 17

Nucleic Acids Research, 2006, Vol. 34, No. 5

e42

Figure 2. Sequence analysis of amplified cDNAs. (A) Sequence of the amplified cDNAs aligned with the complementary sequences of the corresponding
30 transcript ends. A, C, G and T are represented by letters in red, blue, orange and green boxes, respectively. The cDNA sequences from the NCBI database(upper) and the PCR products (lower) are aligned in a pairwise manner. The transcript ends in cDNA sequences from the NCBI database are indicated by red stars.
(B) Sequence data on the 50 ends of the amplified transcripts. The nucleic acids are represented in the same manner as in (A). (C) Schematic summary of the PCR
products. The average nucleotide lengths measured by the sequencing of the 40 cDNAs are indicated. Blue, red and green bars represent V1 and V3 primer sequences
and T7 promoter sequence, respectively. The poly(dA/dT) tracts of variable lengths are represented with black bars. The cDNA body is represented with orange bar.

e42

Nucleic Acids Research, 2006, Vol. 34, No. 5

PAGE 8 OF 17

Table 2. Annotation of cDNAs amplified from 10 pg of total ES cellular RNA
No.

Annotation

Accession

PCR product length (bp)cDNA length (bp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

Mus musculus ribosomal protein S20 (Rps20)
M.musculus thymine DNA glycosylase
M.musculus ribosomal protein L8 (Rpl8)
M.musculus ribosomal protein L11 (Rpl11)
M.musculus mRNA for mKIAA1978
M.musculus ribosomal protein S29
M.musculus SMT3 suppressor of mif two 3 homolog 2 (yeast) (Sumo2)
M.musculus heat shock protein 1 (chaperonin 10) (Hspe1)
M.musculus 0 day neonate head cDNA, RIKEN full-length enriched libraryM.musculus ornithine decarboxylase antizyme (Oaz1)
M.musculus ribosomal protein S20
M.musculus ribosomal protein L8 (RPL8) mRNA
M.musculus ribosomal protein L18
M.musculus neighbor of Cox4
M.musculus ES cells cDNA, RIKEN full-length enriched libraryM.musculus ribosomal protein S18
M.musculus eukaryotic translation elongation factor 2 (Eef2)
M.musculus H2A histone family, member Z
M.musculus programmed cell death protein 11
M.musculus ATP-binding cassette, sub-family F (GCN20), member 2 (Abcf2)
M.musculus ribosomal protein S13
M.musculus procollagen, type XVIII, alpha 1 (Col18a1)
M.musculus acidic ribosomal phosphoprotein P0
M.musculus transient receptor potential cation channel, subfamily C, member 2
M.musculus NADH dehydrogenase (ubiquinone) 1 alpha subcomplex, 7 (B14.5a)
M.musculus laminin receptor 1 (ribosomal protein SA)
M.musculus ribosomal protein S12
M.musculus ribosomal protein S7
M.musculus ribosomal protein L37
M.musculus ribosomal protein S10
M.musculus basic transcription factor 3
M.musculus transducin-like enhancer of split 3, homolog of Drosophila E(spl)M.musculus proteasome (prosome, macropain) 26S subunit,non-ATPase, 3M.musculus tubulin, alpha 2 (Tuba2)
M.musculus ribosomal protein S9
M.musculus fibrillarinM.musculus adult male brain cDNA
M.musculus ribosomal protein S10
M.musculus flotillin 2 (Flot2)
M.musculus Chromosome 1

BC090389
BC085470
U67771BC025077
AY275472
BC024393
BC017522
BC024385
AK161234
NM_008753
BC090389
U67771
BC082290
BC009103
AK131947
BC081458
NM_007907
NM_016750
BC051231
NM_013853
BC090397
NM_009929
BC011291
BC067003
BC055698
BC081461
BC092044
BC002014
BC054388
BC019725
BC080837
BC006672
BC003197
BC108394
BC031746
NM_007991
AK002939
BC019725
NM_008028
AC107762

665
1258
994
738
788
481
1152
782
1310
1103
665
995
710
1105
792
738
1652
1117
565
934
754
1400
1062
947
626
468
649
837
517
738
1029
830
830
616
945
997
420
722
860
388

494
1116
835
588
584
289
983
589
1089
967
496
836
575
955
611
540
1490
945
428
797
510
1230
923
807
483
297
490
664
354
561
859
652
689
436
697
849
284
575
722
179

cDNAs more representatively and reproducibly than theoriginal protocol.
Evaluation of representation in amplified cDNAs by
microarray analysis
To examine the quality of the amplified products using
microarray analysis, the T7 promoter was allocated to the
50 -terminal end of the amplified cDNA with additional PCR
using T7-V1 and V3 primer pairs (Materials and Methods).
The cRNAs were synthesized by IVT from eight independently amplified cDNA samples and applied to Affymetrix
GeneChip Mouse Genome 430 2.0 microarray slides. We
also synthesized eight labeled cRNA samples, each from5 mg of undiluted total RNA, and hybridized them to themicroarray as nonamplified controls.
The normalized scatter plots (Figure 4A) showed a goodcorrelation between the two independently amplified samples(R2 ¼ 0.89 ± 0.01), with 64 and 83% of the probe sets called
Present plotted between 2.0- and 3.5-fold difference lines,
respectively. The log-averaged expression levels of theeight nonamplified controls and the eight independently amplified samples were also considerably correlated (R2 ¼ 0.70)(Figure 4B), with 84% of the probe sets detected in both(see below for our definition of detection) plotted between
the 3.5-fold difference lines. Furthermore, the averaged logexpression levels of the spike RNAs (1000, 100, 20 and
5 copies per cell) were highly proportional to their copy numbers (R2 ¼ 0.996) (Figure 4F). The Lys, Dap and Phe RNAs
were detected in all eight amplified samples, while the Thr
RNA was detected in three of those samples, indicating that
this method can quantify genes expressed at 5–1000 copies percell with appropriate sample numbers (see also below).
Importantly, genes estimated to express >20 copies per cell
exhibited more faithful amplification: 72% of the detectedprobe sets showed <2-fold standard deviation (SD) valuesof the log-expression levels. These results indicate that our
amplification method preserves the representation of gene
expression in the original mRNA with high reproducibility.
Next, we assessed the relationship between expression level
and its ranking in the amplified products. In many different cell
types and many organisms, from yeast to human, the relative
expression levels and their rankings among observed genes
have been shown to exhibit a power-law distribution with an
exponent close to 1, (Zipf’s law) (27). Both the nonamplified
and amplified samples were shown to obey this law, with plot

PAGE 9 OF 17

Nucleic Acids Research, 2006, Vol. 34, No. 5

e42

Figure 3. Performance of the new cDNA amplification method. (A) Representative and reproducible amplification of single-cell cDNAs by the new method (V1V3:
blue squares) compared with the original one (orange squares). The previous method was performed exactly as described in a preceding single-cell microarray study(21). Genes known to be expressed in ES cells and the spike RNAs (Lys, Dap, Phe and Thr for 1000, 100, 20 and 5 copies per cell, respectively) are examined: Fromhigher expression levels, Ezh2, Gapdh, Oct4, Lys, Esg1, Sox2, Rex1, nanog, G9a, Dnmt3b, Dap, lefty1, fragilis, Dnmt1, Fgf4, Eras, Yy1, cMyc, nodal, Phe, Foxh1,
Tiar, Jak1A, Tnap, stella, Tyk2, Thr. The log expression level of each gene is measured by Q-PCR and normalized with that of the spike RNA Lys (1000 copies percell). Results of 10 independent amplifications (10 pg) are plotted against the nonamplified control (1 mg). The undetected genes are plotted in the shaded region. Redlines indicate the expression levels of the spike RNA in the nonamplified control. Green lines indicate fold differences from the nonamplified control. (B) Statisticalcomparison of the present (V1V3) and original (AL1) methods. The frequencies of the probes within the indicated fold differences from the nonamplified control are
shown. The frequencies and the R2 values of the total detected probes are also shown. The population parameter is 260, as the number of examined genes except forLys (used for normalization) is 26 and the sample number is 10.

shapes very similar to those in previously reported results andwith slopes close to 1 (0.84 and 0.95, respectively)(Figure 4C and D) (27). In addition, the differences in expression level rankings between the nonamplified and amplified
samples were within 2.5-fold for the majority of the detectedprobes (85%) (Figure 4E). These data demonstrate anotheraspect of representation preserved by our method.
Detection ability of the new single-cell microarray
methodNext, we calculated the coverage (the rate of true positives
detected in the amplified samples) and accuracy (the rate ofdetected probes that are true positives) of a single amplified
sample using our method (Figure 5A and B) (for the definitionsof coverage and accuracy see Materials and Methods). For
these analyses, the true positive was defined as the probes
called Present (MAS 5.0) in at least six of the eight nonamplified controls (yellow crosses in Figure 5C); the probes called
Present reproducibly in pair-wise comparisons (open square in
Figure 5C) showed similar frequency distributions. Under thisdefinition, about 45% of all probes (20 317) were assumed to
be true positives.
Coverage of the single amplified samples as a function of
expression level was plotted based on the definition of true
positive (the blue squares in Figure 5A). Coverage was highlye42

Nucleic Acids Research, 2006, Vol. 34, No. 5

PAGE 10 OF 17

Figure 4. Performance of the single-cell-level microarray using the new method. (A) Scatter plots of data obtained from two independently amplified samples
from 10 pg ES cellular RNA. Expression levels of all probes are plotted. R2 values were calculated for probes detected reproducibly in pair-wise comparisons.
(B) Scatter plots of data obtained from nonamplified (5 mg total RNA) and amplified samples. The log-averaged expression levels of probes detected in both areplotted. The 2.0- and 3.5-fold differences are represented by red and yellow lines, respectively, in (A) and (B). (C and D) Relationship between expression levels
and their ranking in total RNA from ES cells (C) and an amplified cDNA (D). (E) Scatter plots of expression level ranking between amplified and nonamplified
samples. The red lines represent 2.5-fold differences. (F) Expression levels of amplified spike RNAs proportional to their copy numbers (the probe set IDs are
AFFX-LysX-3_at, AFFX-DapX-3_at, AFFX-PheX-3_at and AFFX-ThrX-3_at). The log-transformed expression levels were averaged and plotted, with the bars
representing SD.

dependent on the expression level. Importantly, however,the vast majority of true positives in the expression level
ranges greater than 20 and 5 copies per cell were successfully
detected in the single amplified samples (94 and 84%, respectively). This demonstrated that our method detects most genesthat are expressed at considerable levels. Accuracy, plotted ina similar manner (blue squares in Figure 5B), showed that
97 and 93% of the detected probes were truly positive inthe expression level range greater than 20 and 5 copies percell, respectively.

Next, we performed a combined analysis of eight independently amplified samples. First, detection by multiple amplified
samples should be defined appropriately (‘definition of detection’, hereafter); most stringently, it can be defined as probes
called Present in all eight amplified samples. Least stringently,
it can be defined as probes called Present in at least one of theeight amplified samples (colored crosses in Figure 5D). In
comparison with the single-sample analysis, in the multiplesample analysis the coverage was improved under the definitions of detection where >1 to >5 of the eight amplified

PAGE 11 OF 17

Nucleic Acids Research, 2006, Vol. 34, No. 5

e42

Figure 5. Detection ability of single-cell microarray using the new method. (A) Coverage of the amplified samples, plotted against the expression level in the originalRNA. The blue squares represent the means of coverage in single-sample analyses, with bars representing SDs. The results of multiple-sample analyses under thedefinitions of detection where >1–8 of the 8 amplified samples are called Present are represented by the crosses colored with purple, light pink, cyan, green, lightgreen, yellow, red and hot pink, respectively. (B) Accuracy of the amplified samples as a function of expression level. The representation code is the same as in (A).
(C) Frequency distribution of probes detected in the nonamplified controls as a function of expression level. (D) Frequency distribution of probes detected in theamplified samples as a function of expression level. The closed blue squares represent the means of the frequency of the Present probes in single nonamplified controls(C) and amplified samples (D), respectively, while the open blue squares represent the means of probes called Present reproducibly in pair-wise comparisons. The
color code in the multiple sample analyses is similar to that in (A), corresponding to the definitions of true positive (C) and detection (D), respectively. The expression
levels of the spike RNAs in the nonamplified controls (A and C) and amplified samples (B and D) are represented by red dashed lines. (E) Position effects of probe
locations on signal intensities. The probes (individual probes, not probe sets) in the Affymetrix GeneChip Mouse Genome 430 2.0 array were classified according to
the distance from the probe location to the 30 ends of the transcripts. The histograms of the probes located within 600 bp from the 30 ends are represented by warm
colors (red/yellow), while those beyond 600 bp are represented by cold colors (blue/green). The probe frequencies were plotted against the difference in intensity
between nonamplified controls and amplified samples (log10 transformed). These plots were generated from probes called Present. The probe locations were
determined using the EnsEMBL transcript database or, for probes not contained in the EMBL database, using the EST data provided by Affymetrix. (F) Frequency
distribution of probes against the distances from the 30 ends of the transcripts. The total number of probes on the array in each location category is represented by a bar.
The color code is the same as in (B). The blue circles and red squares represent the averages and peaks of intensity difference. Note that both are roughly constantrelative to the probe location, with shifts of <2-fold (100.3).

e42

Nucleic Acids Research, 2006, Vol. 34, No. 5

samples are called Present (Figure 5A). On the other hand, theaccuracy was improved under definitions of detection where>3 to 8 of the eight amplified samples are called Present(Figure 5B). Therefore, we consider that the most appropriate
definition of detection may be that at least three of the eight
amplified samples are called Present (cyan crosses in
Figure 5A and B). Under this definition, about 39% of allprobes (17 425) were assumed to have been detected. Importantly, accuracy was high when this definition of detection wasused. Coverage and accuracy were 92 and 94% in the expression level range >5 copies per cell, respectively, and both ofthem are 97% in the expression level range >20 copies per cell.
Interestingly, coverage was by far more dependent thanaccuracy on the definition of detection, especially in lower
expression levels (Figure 5A and B). This suggests that theunreproducible reduction of Present calls from nonamplified
controls observed at low expression levels of amplified
samples (filled and open squares in Figure 5D) was due torandom detection failures (false negatives), possibly caused in
the dilution process of the RNA and/or in the initial RT reaction, rather than to the effect of nonspecific amplification and/or hybridization (false positives). It has often been pointed outthat the three-prime restriction of the RT products may resultin the failure to detect some probes. Although we observed thislimitation in some of the detected probes (data not shown), it
seems to occur only in a minority of them (Figure 5E and F)
and therefore would not be a major drawback of the new
methodology. As determined by sequencing, the average
length of amplified cDNA bodies without poly(dA) tract
and primer sequences on both ends was 687 ± 279 bp(Figure 2C and Table 2), while the majority of the probes(89%) were located within 600 bp of the 30 -terminus of
the transcripts (Figure 5F). Collectively, these results clearly
demonstrate the high reliability of our single-cell level
microarray method.
We also statistically compared the representation, reproducibility, coverage and accuracy of our microarray data withthose by the original method published by Tietjen et al. (21)and found that, consistent with our Q-PCR examination(Figure 3A), representation, reproducibility and accuracy
were improved with our method (for detailed comparison
see Materials and Methods, Discussion and Figure 7).
More sensitive identification of transcriptional differencesamong different single-cell populations is therefore possible
with our method, with appropriate statistical analyses including that of signal-to-noise ratio/T-test in conjunction with the
permutation test. This combination of tests precludes thecontribution of any sample variability, including that fromthe methodology, at high confidence (see Materials andMethods and below).
Application of the method to single cells in blastocysts ofmouse embryos
The ICM of the early blastocyst at E3.5, a source of ES cell
derivation (28,29), is a morphologically homogeneous population of undifferentiated pluripotent cells that give rise to allembryonic lineages (30). A recent study, however, has started
to show that a subset of cells in the ICM exhibits a sign ofdifferentiation into PE as early as E3.5, which is evidenced bylineage-tracing experiments and the localized expression of

PAGE 12 OF 17

Gata6, a critical transcription factor for PE differentiation(31). To assess the power of our single-cell microarray
method, we went on to analyze the transcriptomes of single
cells in the ICM at E3.5. We isolated blastocysts at E3.5 anddissociated the ICM into single cells by trypsin-EDTA treatment. To prepare cDNA samples, we then randomly picked atotal of 55 single cells. The synthesized cDNAs were screened
by gene-specific PCR using Oct4 and Cdx2 to remove trophectoderm cells (32,33), and 50 cells were identified as Oct4positive and Cdx2-negative. The expression levels of Oct4
in these cells were found to be almost uniform by Q-PCR(Figure 6E). Therefore, 20 randomly selected samples wereapplied to the GeneChip Mouse Genome 430 2.0 array, andwere analyzed by unsupervised hierarchical clustering (34)
using GenePattern software (35), which performs thesignal-to-noise ratio analysis/T-test in conjunction with the
permutation test to preclude the contribution of any sample
variability, including that from the methodology, at high confidence. These analyses revealed that these samples can beclassified roughly into two groups: cluster 1, consisting of
9 cells, and cluster 2, consisting of 11 (Figure 6A). The
class neighbor analysis (35) identified the genes that are
differentially expressed between the two clusters (Figure 6B
and Supplementary Table S1), and the class predictors
revealed that the genes related to the epiblast (nanog andFgf4) (36–38) and the PE (Gata4, Gata6 and cubilin)(31,39,40) each belong to either one cluster or the other.
The signal-to-noise scores calculated by the class neighboralgorithm were greater than the 5% level in the histogramsof the scores generated by random permutations (N ¼ 100)
corresponding to each rank (35), for all of the top 100 genes foreach cluster. The epiblast-related gene Fgf4 and the pluripotent marker nanog were up-regulated in cluster 1, andwere associated with genes such as transcription factors(Sox2, c-Myc, Klf2, SpiC), signal transduction factors(Prkcz, Trio, Rhebl1 and Rhpn2), and apoptosis-associatedgenes (Bcl2l14, Bcl7a and Ndg1) (Figure 6B and C). On
the other hand, the endoderm-related genes were upregulated in cluster 2 in association with many other genes,
including transcription factors (Sox17, Runx1), cell surface
receptors (Fgfr2, Pdgfr2 and Pthr1), a basement membranecomponent (Lama1), and de novo DNA methyltransferases(Dnmt3a and Dnmt3l) (Figure 6B and C). We confirmed
the expression of these differentially expressed genes by QPCR (Figure 6C). Furthermore, we examined the expression
levels of key genes in all 50 samples and found that the trend
we identified by the microarray experiments using 20 samples
was essentially preserved (Figure 6E); the rate of Gata4-positive cells in 20 samples used in microarray analysis [65% (13/20)] was comparable with that in all the isolated 50 ICM cells[60% (30/50)] (see also below), suggesting that the randomly
chosen 20 samples are a suitable representative of the population of ICM cells. These findings suggest that morphologically indistinguishable ICM cells with similar Oct4 expression
levels do indeed undergo bi-directional differentiation towardeither a PE or epiblast fate even by E3.5, with robust expression of lineage-determining transcription factors (the expression levels of Gata4 and Gata6, the most upstream regulator
for PE differentiation, are as high as a few hundred copies percell, and those for nanog and Klf2 are as high as a thousand
copies per epiblast cell).

PAGE 13 OF 17

Nucleic Acids Research, 2006, Vol. 34, No. 5

e42

Figure 6. Direct application of the newly developed method to single ICM cells from mouse E3.5 blastocyst reveals the presence of two distinct cell populations.
(A) Hierarchical clustering of single ICM cells. (B) Heat map representation of differentially expressed genes (top 100). The expression levels are color-coded fromred (high) to blue (low). The expression levels are normalized in the lows. (C) The correlation of gene expression is preserved between E3.5 and E4.5. The copy
numbers of expressed genes were estimated with Q-PCR. Orange, pink and green bars represent high, middle and low/non-detectable expression of Gata4,
respectively. P-values of the Chi-square test for independence from Gata4 expression are indicated. (D and F) Blastocysts at E3.5 (D) and E4.5 (F). The typicalembryos used for single-cell experiments are shown. (E and G) Expression levels of key genes related to PE and epiblast at E3.5 (E) and E4.5 (G). All of the single-cellsamples of ICMs are shown. The representation code is the same as in (C).

e42

Nucleic Acids Research, 2006, Vol. 34, No. 5

PAGE 14 OF 17

Figure 7. Statistical comparison between the new and original (Org.) methods. (A and B) Frequency distribution of Present call in the new (A) and original (B)methods. The data of the original method were obtained from a previous microarray study using GeneChip [Supplementary Data set S6 (21)]. The closed squares
represent the average frequencies of the probes (mean ± SD) called Present in single samples. The open squares represent the average frequency (mean ± SD) of theprobes called Present reproducibly in pair-wise comparisons. The expression levels are normalized as described in the text. (C) Coverage in single sample analyses.
The closed and open squares represent coverage of the new and original methods, respectively, with the bars representing SD. (D) Accuracy in single-sample
analyses. The representation manner is the same as in (C). (E) Coverage in multiple sample analyses. Data from the new method are represented by solid lines in cold
colors (blue/green). Data from the original method are represented by dashed lines in warm colors (red/yellow). Each line represents the indicated definition of
detection. (F) Accuracy in multiple-sample analyses. The representation manner is the same as in (E).

To confirm this observation, we next examined whether
or not genes identified as differentially expressed arepreserved in morphologically differentiated PE and epiblast
at E4.5. We prepared cDNAs from 65 single cells of dissociated ICMs at E4.5, of which 61 were identified as ICM cells(Oct4-positive, Cdx2-negative). Among the ICM cells, wefound that 57% (35/61) express both Gata4 and Gata6 as
PE and that 39% (24/61) are Gata4- and Gata6-negative
and Oct4-positive as epiblast, while only 3% (2/61) showeddisassociated expression of Gata4 and Gata6 (Figure 6G). The
Gata4- and Gata6-positive cells at E4.5 almost exclusively

expressed other PE markers, including Hhex, Hnf4a and vHnf1(41–44). This is in contrast with the expression at E3.5, when
Hhex and Hnf4a were expressed in both the endoderm- andepiblast-like populations while vHnf1 showed no detectable
expression in either population (Figure 6C). Furthermore, thePE markers were much more closely associated with eachother at E4.5 than at E3.5, as shown in Figure 6C, E andG, since 32% (16/50) of the isolated ICM cells at E3.5 showed
Gata6 expression with low or undetectable expression of
Gata4 [60% (30/50) and 90% (45/50) of the isolated
ICM cells at E3.5 showed Gata4 and Gata6 expression,

PAGE 15 OF 17

respectively, (Figure 6E and G)]. These results indicated that
PE is indeed well established at E4.5.
Using Q-PCR, we examined the expression of 32 genesthat were differentially expressed between clusters 1 and
2 (16 genes each) in E4.5 PE and epiblast using Q-PCR.
As shown in Figure 6C, the correlation of gene expression
between the E3.5 and E4.5 samples was well conserved. Of the
16 genes up-regulated in cluster 2 at E3.5 (Gata4, Gata6,
Cubn, Lama1, Sox17, Aqp8, BC017612, Fgfr2, Pdgfra, Pfkl,
Pthr1, Soat1, Runx1, Dnmt3l, Dnmt3a, Serpinh1), all but
2 (Dnmt3a and Dnmt3l) preserved the correlation at E4.5
(Figure 6C, orange bars). This strongly indicated thatPE-like cells at E3.5 are indeed the precursors of established
PE at E4.5. On the other hand, of the 16 genes up-regulated incluster 1 (Fgf4, Sox2, nanog, Klf2, c-Myc, SpiC, Rhpn2,
Rhebl1, Trio, Prkcz, Bcl2l14, Bcl7a, Ndg1, Tuft1,
BB242234, AV101904) 7 preserved the correlation in E4.5
epiblast cells (Figure 6C, green bars). As with theendoderm-related genes, all these genes were more closely
associated with each other and disassociated from PE markers
at E4.5 than at E3.5. The P-values of the Chi-square test forindependence (Materials and Methods) indicated that theobserved coherent gene expressions were statistically significant (Figure 6C). Remarkably, the expression of epiblast
marker Sox2 was highly up-regulated in the Gata4- andGata6-negative cells; it was expressed in both, with only amarginal difference between expression patterns at E3.5.
Moreover, the expression of pluripotency marker nanog
was considerably decreased at E4.5, although the nanog
expression was restricted to the Sox2-positive and Gata4and Gata6-negative cells. This observation is consistent
with a previous study showing that nanog expression ishigh in the ICMs of early blastocysts, while in later blastocysts
it decreases in ICMs and is excluded from the PE (38). Moreover, it was intriguing that, by the hierarchical clustering, all
the ICM cells at E3.5 were defined as being closer to eachother than to ES cells (data not shown), suggesting that thePE- and epiblast-like populations at E3.5 are basically very
close to each other. Collectively, these observations demonstrate that the single-cell microarray technology can identify
the very onset of biologically relevant quantitative differencesin gene expression among single cells and can identify
genes that may work at the most upstream step of the PE
differentiation from ICM cells.
DISCUSSION
Improvement of single-cell microarray experiments
Reliable technology for the precise monitoring of global gene
expression at the single-cell level has been sought in various
areas of biological sciences. The method we presented consistsof relatively few cycles of directional exponential amplification, followed by isothermal linear amplification. The representation and reproducibility of the cDNAs amplified by thismethod were superior to those amplified by the original
method, as shown by the Q-PCR analysis (Figure 3). The
microarray data obtained with GeneChip Mouse Genome
430 2.0 arrays were highly consistent with this result. The
analyses of the absolute detection calls also showed highcoverage and accuracy with our method.

Nucleic Acids Research, 2006, Vol. 34, No. 5

e42

To date, successful single-cell-transcript analyses based on
exponential amplification have been reported: modifications of
Brady and Iscove’s original method (13,20,21); an arbitrarilyprimed PCR method (45); and a combination of SMART-PCR
and two-round IVT (46). Two of them, using modified Brady
and Iscove’s methods, have been well characterized (13,21).
We describe here some of the statistical differences between
the microarray data obtained with our method and thatobtained with the original one (8,21), in both the qualitative(coverage and accuracy) and quantitative (representation andreproducibility) aspects (Figure 7). For this comparison, weused the microarray data in the previous study [Supplementary
Data set S6 from Tietjen et al. (21)] in which repeatedly sampled diluted (10 pg) and undiluted total RNA from humanglioblastoma cell culture were used, exactly as in the caseof our ES cell sample analyses (see Materials and Methods
for the normalization between Tietjen’s and our data). The
frequency distributions of the detected probes are shown in
Figure 7A and B. For the qualitative comparison, we calculated coverage and accuracy based on the definitions describedabove. In single-sample analyses, while the coverage obtainedby our method is comparable with that obtained by the previous analysis, the accuracy is unambiguously improved in the
new method (Figure 7C and D), consistent with the Q-PCR
analysis (Figure 3B). In multiple-sample analyses, on the other
hand, the difference between the new and original methods ismore remarkable; the least stringent definition of detection in
our method (>1 of 8 amplified samples call Present, blue line
in Figure 7F) still shows an accuracy comparable with that
achieved under the most stringent definition of detection in theprevious study (all six of the amplified samples call Present,
dashed orange line in Figure 7F). These results suggest thequalitative improvement achieved with our method.
For quantitative aspects, our single-cell microarray showed
higher correlations between independently amplified samples
and between nonamplified and amplified samples than thosefrom the previous study (R2 values of the former were0.89 versus 0.69, R2 values of the latter 0.69 were versus
0.41, respectively), suggesting improvements in both representation and reproducibility. These comparisons are highly
consistent with our extensive Q-PCR comparison of the quality of amplified samples between the original and the new
methods (Figure 3).
Our protocol includes Exonuclease I treatment to degrade
un-reacted first-strand synthesis primer. This treatment resulted in an efficient PCR with a good amount of amplified
product obtained after relatively few PCR cycles and avoiding
the risks of distorted gene representation. Directional amplification generated the sense-antisense orientation of the PCR
products, enabling the direct applicability of amplified cDNA
to high-density oligonucleotide microarrays according to thestandard labeling protocols. These factors may have contributed to the improvement of the quality of the microarray datawith our method.
Advantage of exponential amplification over linear
amplification in single-cell analyses
Although a full statistical validation has yet to be described
properly, there are some reports of single-cell microarray
analyses using linear amplification protocols (12,47–49).

e42

Nucleic Acids Research, 2006, Vol. 34, No. 5

Regarding the general nature of amplification, the exponential and linear amplifications are essentially complementary toeach other in gene expression profiling (13–15). However,when applied to single-cell-level samples, exponential
amplification has clear advantages over linear amplification.
First, owing to the limited amplification capacity of the latter,the existing two-round IVT labeling procedures provide
106-fold or less amplification (50). This amount is slightly
insufficient for one oligonucleotide microarray experimentaccording to the standard protocols recommended by, forexample, the Affymetrix GeneChip series and the Code link
platforms, although future improvements in the IVT and/or
microarray reagents or protocols might overcome this shortcoming. On the other hand, the exponential methods, including
ours, can provide abundant cDNA products. This advantagemeans that researchers can use the cDNAs obtained by a single
experiment for a wide range of analyses of single-celltranscriptomes—including the screening of amplified singlecell cDNAs by marker-gene-specific PCR, detailed Q-PCR
analyses on specific genes, verification of amplification quality before microarray applications, and a few dozen experiments on various microarrays. This advantage also
indicates that the exponential amplification protocol offers
better cost-performance.
Moreover, the two-round linear amplification procedurerequires purification of total RNA from single cells at theonset of cDNA synthesis, as well as complicated processes
including repeated DNA/RNA synthesis and purification(10–12). The RNA purification from single cells may leadto the loss of mRNAs expressed at low levels. In contrast,
our PCR-based method does not require the single-cell-level
RNA isolation and is conducted in a single tube without buffer
exchanges; it is completed within a few hours and enables
multiple samples to be processed in one experiment. These
were advantages of the original method (8,9). In addition,
linear amplification produces RNA, while DNA is the final
product in exponential amplification. DNA is more suitable foruse as a PCR template for quality checking and screening cells
using marker gene expressions. DNA is also better than RNA
for long-term storage because it is chemically more stable.
These advantages would make exponential amplification
more suitable for some practical situations where repeatedsamplings of a number of single-cell cDNAs are required.
Application of the single-cell microarray method to earlymouse embryogenesis
We applied this newly developed method to single ICM cells
from E3.5 mouse blastocysts, which differentiate into either
PE or epiblast cells within one day. Since there are so few
ICM cells (no more than 20), all the transcriptome analyses inthis stage have been performed with hundreds of whole
embryos, including trophectoderm cells (51–54), which
provide expression profiles of the mixtures of embryonicand extra-embryonic components.
Using the improved single-cell method, we performed
genome-wide analysis of single ICM cells for the first time.
We found that the morphologically homogeneous ICM cells
have, as early as E3.5, at least two populations of cells, onewith PE- and the other with epiblast-like gene expression,
which is consistent with a previous report showing the distinct

PAGE 16 OF 17

expression of one transcription factor in embryos at this stage(31). We discovered genes associated with either population,and found that many of them showed preserved and higher
correlations to the well-differentiated PE and/or epiblast cellsof E4.5 embryos. This demonstrated that morphologicallyindistinguishable ICM cells do indeed undergo differentiation
toward either PE or epiblast fate already by E3.5. It will beinteresting to examine how far we can trace back the originof blastomeres that show distinct gene expression profiles
in preimplantation embryos. At the same time, such an
experiment may reveal a distinct set of genes critical for
lineage allocation.
In conclusion, we have developed a highly quantitativeand reproducible cDNA amplification method from single
cells and have effectively demonstrated its applicability topractical biological questions of interest. As shown with
one example here, this method is applicable to a wide varietyof biological/biophysical questions that require resolution at
the single-cell level.

SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
Supplementary Data are available at NAR Online.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank Miss Junko Nishio for her excellent help in the
microarray experiments, including IVT labeling andhybridization, and Dr Minoru S.H. Ko for critical reading of
the manuscript. This study was supported in part by a Grantin-Aid from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Scienceand Technology of Japan, and by a PRESTO project grant fromJapan Science and Technology Agency (M.S.). Funding to pay
the Open Access publication charges for this article wasprovided by RIKEN.
Conflict of interest statement. None declared.
REFERENCES
1. Hartwell,L.H., Hopfield,J.J., Leibler,S. and Murray,A.W. (1999) From
molecular to modular cell biology. Nature, 402, C47–C52.
2. Kitano,H. (2002) Systems biology: a brief overview. Science, 295,
1662–1664.
3. Westerhoff,H.V. and Palsson,B.O. (2004) The evolution of molecularbiology into systems biology. Nat. Biotechnol., 22, 1249–1252.
4. Lockhart,D.J., Dong,H., Byrne,M.C., Follettie,M.T., Gallo,M.V.,
Chee,M.S., Mittmann,M., Wang,C., Kobayashi,M., Horton,H. et al.
(1996) Expression monitoring by hybridization to high-density
oligonucleotide arrays. Nat. Biotechnol., 14, 1675–1680.
5. Baugh,L.R., Hill,A.A., Brown,E.L. and Hunter,C.P. (2001) Quantitative
analysis of mRNA amplification by in vitro transcription. Nucleic Acids
Res., 29, E29.
6. Wang,E., Miller,L.D., Ohnmacht,G.A., Liu,E.T. and Marincola,F.M.
(2000) High-fidelity mRNA amplification for gene profiling. Nat.
Biotechnol., 18, 457–459.
7. Korobkova,E., Emonet,T., Vilar,J.M., Shimizu,T.S. and Cluzel,P. (2004)
From molecular noise to behavioural variability in a single bacterium.
Nature, 428, 574–578.
8. Brady,G., Barbara,M. and Iscove,N. (1990) Representative in vitro cDNA
amplification from individual hemopoietic cells and colonies. Methods
Mol. Cell. Biol., 2, 17–25.
9. Dulac,C. and Axel,R. (1995) A novel family of genes encoding putative
pheromone receptors in mammals. Cell, 83, 195–206.

PAGE 17 OF 17

10. Van Gelder,R.N., von Zastrow,M.E., Yool,A., Dement,W.C.,
Barchas,J.D. and Eberwine,J.H. (1990) Amplified RNA synthesized fromlimited quantities of heterogeneous cDNA. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA,87, 1663–1667.
11. Eberwine,J., Yeh,H., Miyashiro,K., Cao,Y., Nair,S., Finnell,R., Zettel,M.
and Coleman,P. (1992) Analysis of gene expression in single live neurons.
Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 89, 3010–3014.
12. Kamme,F., Salunga,R., Yu,J., Tran,D.T., Zhu,J., Luo,L., Bittner,A.,
Guo,H.Q., Miller,N., Wan,J. et al. (2003) Single-cell microarray analysis
in hippocampus CA1: demonstration and validation of cellular
heterogeneity. J. Neurosci., 23, 3607–3615.
13. Iscove,N.N., Barbara,M., Gu,M., Gibson,M., Modi,C. andWinegarden,N. (2002) Representation is faithfully preserved in global
cDNA amplified exponentially from sub-picogram quantities of mRNA.
Nat. Biotechnol., 20, 940–943.
14. Klur,S., Toy,K., Williams,M.P. and Certa,U. (2004) Evaluation ofprocedures for amplification of small-size samples for hybridization on
microarrays. Genomics, 83, 508–517.
15. Ji,W., Zhou,W., Gregg,K., Lindpaintner,K. and Davis,S. (2004) A method
for gene expression analysis by oligonucleotide arrays from minutebiological materials. Anal. Biochem., 331, 329–339.
16. Ko,M.S.H., Ko,S.B.H., Takahashi,N., Nishiguchi,K. and Abe,K. (1990)
Unbiased amplification of a highly complex mixture of DNA fragments by‘lone linker’-tagged PCR. Nucleic Acids Res., 18, 4293–4294.
17. Petalidis,L., Bhattacharyya,S., Morris,G.A., Collins,V.P., Freeman,T.C.
and Lyons,P.A. (2003) Global amplification of mRNA bytemplate-switching PCR: linearity and application to microarray analysis.
Nucleic Acids Res., 31, e142.
18. Saito,H., Kubota,M., Roberts,R.W., Chi,Q. and Matsunami,H. (2004)
RTP family members induce functional expression of mammalian odorant
receptors. Cell, 119, 679–691.
19. Saitou,M., Barton,S.C. and Surani,M.A. (2002) A molecular programme
for the specification of germ cell fate in mice. Nature, 418, 293–300.
20. Chiang,M.K. and Melton,D.A. (2003) Single-cell transcript analysis ofpancreas development. Dev. Cell, 4, 383–393.
21. Tietjen,I., Rihel,J.M., Cao,Y., Koentges,G., Zakhary,L. and Dulac,C.
(2003) Single-cell transcriptional analysis of neuronal progenitors.
Neuron, 38, 161–175.
22. Brady,G., Billia,F., Knox,J., Hoang,T., Kirsch,I.R., Voura,E.B.,
Hawley,R.G., Cumming,R., Buchwald,M. and Siminovitch,K. (1995)
Analysis of gene expression in a complex differentiation hierarchy byglobal amplification of cDNA from single cells. Curr. Biol., 5, 909–922.
23. Brail,L.H., Jang,A., Billia,F., Iscove,N.N., Klamut,H.J. and Hill,R.P.
(1999) Gene expression in individual cells: analysis using global single
cell reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (GSC RT-PCR).
Mutat. Res., 406, 45–54.
24. Brady,G. and Iscove,N.N. (1993) Construction of cDNA libraries fromsingle cells. Methods Enzymol., 225, 611–623.
25. Li,C. and Wong,W.H. (2001) Model-based analysis of oligonucleotide
arrays: expression index computation and outlier detection. Proc. Natl
Acad. Sci. USA, 98, 31–36.
26. Gautier,L., Cope,L., Bolstad,B.M. and Irizarry,R.A. (2004) affy–analysis
of Affymetrix GeneChip data at the probe level. Bioinformatics, 20,
307–315.
27. Furusawa,C. and Kaneko,K. (2003) Zipf’s Low in Gene Expression. Phys.
Rev. Lett., 90, 088102.
28. Evans,M.J. and Kaufman,M.H. (1981) Establishment in culture ofpluripotential cells from mouse embryos. Nature, 292, 154–156.
29. Martin,G.R. (1981) Isolation of a pluripotent cell line from early mouseembryos cultured in medium conditioned by teratocarcinoma stem cells.
Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 78, 7634–7638.
30. Gardner,R.L. and Rossant,J. (1979) Investigation of the fate of 4-5 day
post-coitum mouse inner cell mass cells by blastocyst injection.
J. Embryol. Exp. Morphol., 52, 141–152.
31. Rossant,J., Chazaud,C. and Yamanaka,Y. (2003) Lineage allocation andasymmetries in the early mouse embryo. Philos. Trans. R Soc. Lond.
B Biol. Sci., 358, 1341–1348; discussion 1349.
32. Nichols,J., Zevnik,B., Anastassiadis,K., Niwa,H., Klewe-Nebenius,D.,
Chambers,I., Scholer,H. and Smith,A. (1998) Formation of pluripotent
stem cells in the mammalian embryo depends on the POU transcription
factor Oct4. Cell, 95, 379–391.
33. Beck,F., Erler,T., Russell,A. and James,R. (1995) Expression of Cdx-2 inthe mouse embryo and placenta: possible role in patterning of theextra-embryonic membranes. Dev. Dyn., 204, 219–227.

Nucleic Acids Research, 2006, Vol. 34, No. 5

e42

34. Eisen,M.B., Spellman,P.T., Brown,P.O. and Botstein,D. (1998) Cluster
analysis and display of genome-wide expression patterns. Proc. Natl
Acad. Sci. USA, 95, 14863–14868.
35. Golub,T.R., Slonim,D.K., Tamayo,P., Huard,C., Gaasenbeek,M.,
Mesirov,J.P., Coller,H., Loh,M.L., Downing,J.R., Caligiuri,M.A. et al.
(1999) Molecular classification of cancer: class discovery and classprediction by gene expression monitoring. Science, 286, 531–537.
36. Niswander,L. and Martin,G.R. (1992) Fgf-4 expression during
gastrulation, myogenesis, limb and tooth development in the mouse.
Development, 114, 755–768.
37. Mitsui,K., Tokuzawa,Y., Itoh,H., Segawa,K., Murakami,M.,
Takahashi,K., Maruyama,M., Maeda,M. and Yamanaka,S. (2003) The
Homeoprotein Nanog Is Required for Maintenance of Pluripotency inMouse Epiblast and ES Cells. Cell, 113, 631–642.
38. Chambers,I., Colby,D., Robertson,M., Nichols,J., Lee,S., Tweedie,S. andSmith,A. (2003) Functional expression cloning of nanog, a pluripotency
sustaining factor in embryonic stem cells. Cell, 113, 643–655.
39. Arceci,R.J., King,A.A., Simon,M.C., Orkin,S.H. and Wilson,D.B. (1993)
Mouse GATA-4: a retinoic acid-inducible GATA-binding transcription
factor expressed in endodermally derived tissues and heart. Mol. Cell.
Biol., 13, 2235–2246.
40. Assemat,E., Vinot,S., Gofflot,F., Linsel-Nitschke,P., Illien,F.,
Chatelet,F., Verroust,P., Louvet-Vallee,S., Rinninger,F. and Kozyraki,R.
(2005) Expression and role of cubilin in the internalization of nutrientsduring the peri-implantation development of the rodent embryo. Biol.
Reprod., 72, 1079–1086.
41. Barbacci,E., Reber,M., Ott,M.O., Breillat,C., Huetz,F. and Cereghini,S.
(1999) Variant hepatocyte nuclear factor 1 is required for visceralendoderm specification. Development, 126, 4795–4805.
42. Duncan,S.A., Manova,K., Chen,W.S., Hoodless,P., Weinstein,D.C.,
Bachvarova,R.F. and Darnell,J.E.,Jr (1994) Expression of transcription
factor HNF-4 in the extraembryonic endoderm, gut, and nephrogenic
tissue of the developing mouse embryo: HNF-4 is a marker for primary
endoderm in the implanting blastocyst. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 91,
7598–7602.
43. Thomas,P.Q., Brown,A. and Beddington,R.S. (1998) Hex: a homeobox
gene revealing peri-implantation asymmetry in the mouse embryo and an
early transient marker of endothelial cell precursors. Development, 125,
85–94.
44. Goldin,S.N. and Papaioannou,V.E. (2003) Paracrine action of FGF4
during periimplantation development maintains trophectoderm andprimitive endoderm. Genesis, 36, 40–47.
45. Brandt,S., Kloska,S., Altmann,T. and Kehr,J. (2002) Using arrayhybridization to monitor gene expression at the single cell level.
J. Exp. Bot., 53, 2315–2323.
46. Gustincich,S., Contini,M., Gariboldi,M., Puopolo,M., Kadota,K.,
Bono,H., LeMieux,J., Walsh,P., Carninci,P., Hayashizaki,Y. et al. (2004)
Gene discovery in genetically labeled single dopaminergic neurons of theretina. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 101, 5069–5074.
47. Seshi,B., Kumar,S. and King,D. (2003) Multilineage gene expression inhuman bone marrow stromal cells as evidenced by single-cell microarray
analysis. Blood Cells Mol. Dis., 31, 268–285.
48. Chow,N., Cox,C., Callahan,L.M., Weimer,J.M., Guo,L. andColeman,P.D. (1998) Expression profiles of multiple genes in single
neurons of Alzheimer’s disease. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 95,9620–9625.
49. Eberwine,J., Kacharmina,J.E., Andrews,C., Miyashiro,K., McIntosh,T.,
Becker,K., Barrett,T., Hinkle,D., Dent,G. and Marciano,P. (2001) mRna
expression analysis of tissue sections and single cells. J. Neurosci., 21,
8310–8314.
50. Eberwine,J. (2001) Single-cell molecular biology. Nature Neurosci.,
4, 1155–1156.
51. Zeng,F. and Schultz,R.M. (2005) RNA transcript profiling during zygotic
gene activation in the preimplantation mouse embryo. Dev. Biol., 283,
40–57.
52. Zeng,F., Baldwin,D.A. and Schultz,R.M. (2004) Transcript profiling
during preimplantation mouse development. Dev. Biol., 272, 483–496.
53. Wang,Q.T., Piotrowska,K., Ciemerych,M.A., Milenkovic,L., Scott,M.P.,
Davis,R.W. and Zernicka-Goetz,M. (2004) A genome-wide study of geneactivity reveals developmental signaling pathways in the preimplantation
mouse embryo. Dev. Cell, 6, 133–144.
54. Hamatani,T., Carter,M.G., Sharov,A.A. and Ko,M.S.H. (2004) Dynamics
of global gene expression changes during mouse preimplantation
development. Dev. Cell, 6, 117–131.