\\\
\
\
Fig.#S12.#CNV#identification#specificity#and#ADO#rates#of#different#singlePcell#WGA#methods#using#HTP29#cells.#(A)\The\specificity\of\CNV\detection.\Unamplified\the\than\MALBAC\or\conventional\MDA.\(B)\The\ADO\rates\of\deeply\sequenced\exome\data\of\single\HT629\cells.\eMDA\improves\the\coverage\of\both\alleles\significantly,\\\\\
\
\
27\of\33\
\\\
\
#
Fig.#S13.#The#single#cell#observed#under#a#stereomicroscope#before#lysis.\Each\single\cell\was\identified%under\a\microscope\and\then\picked%using\a\mouth\new\stringent\the\\\
\
\
28\of\33\
\
\
#
Fig.#S14.#Quantitative#PCR#(qPCR)#result#of#selected#loci#from#each#singlePcell#WGA#sample.\was\examined\by\qPCR\with\8\sites\on\the\genome.\These\sites\are\picked\randomly\with\different\product\lengths\to\fully\examine\the\amplification\quality.\Primers%used\for\these\qPCR\are\listed\in\Table#S2.#(A)\The\qPCR\Ct\values\of\each\locus\of\the\amplification\products\of\single\HUVECs.\(B)\The\qPCR\Single\HUVECs\\\\
\
29\of\33\
\
#
Table#S1.#The#detection#efficiency#comparison#between#MALBAC#and#eMDA###SNVs#SNVs#
Heterozygous#SNVs#Homozygous#SNVs#Total#SNVs#
Bulk#
2,896,269\2,076,937\
1,157,899\782,835\68%\
SinglePCell#MALBAC#
SNVs#\##
#1,931,223\
720,860\62%\
2,652,083\65%\
Detection#efficiency#67%\
4,054,168\2,859,772\70%\
SinglePCell#eMDA#
Detection#efficiency#72%\
\
30\of\33\
