ArticleNucleic acids research2007
Exploiting noise in array CGH data to improve detection of DNA copy number change.
Article in Nucleic acids research, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- iSeg: an efficient algorithm for segmentation of genomic and epigenomic data.BMC bioinformatics · 2018Article
- A case of near-triploidy in myelodysplastic syndrome with del(5q) combined with del(1p) and del(13q).Annals of laboratory medicine · 2012Article
- Bayesian Nonparametric Hidden Markov Models with application to the analysis of copy-number-variation in mammalian genomes.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, Statistical methodology · 2011Article
- Article
- Microarray comparative genomic hybridisation analysis incorporating genomic organisation, and application to enterobacterial plant pathogens.PLoS computational biology · 2009Article
- A process for analysis of microarray comparative genomics hybridisation studies for bacterial genomes.BMC genomics · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Developing effective methods for analyzing array-CGH data to detect chromosomal aberrations is very important for the diagnosis of pathogenesis of cancer and other diseases. Current analysis methods, being largely based on smoothing and/or segmentation, are not quite capable of detecting both the aberration regions and the boundary break points very accurately. Furthermore, when evaluating the accuracy of an algorithm for analyzing array-CGH data, it is commonly assumed that noise in the data follows normal distribution. A fundamental question is whether noise in array-CGH is indeed Gaussian, and if not, can one exploit the characteristics of noise to develop novel analysis methods that are capable of detecting accurately the aberration regions as well as the boundary break points simultaneously? By analyzing bacterial artificial chromosomes (BACs) arrays with an average 1 mb resolution, 19 k oligo arrays with the average probe spacing <100 kb and 385 k oligo arrays with the average probe spacing of about 6 kb, we show that when there are aberrations, noise in all three types of arrays is highly non-Gaussian and possesses long-range spatial correlations, and that such noise leads to worse performance of existing methods for detecting aberrations in array-CGH than the Gaussian noise case. We further develop a novel method, which has optimally exploited the character of the noise, and is capable of identifying both aberration regions as well as the boundary break points very accurately. Finally, we propose a new concept, posteriori signal-to-noise ratio (p-SNR), to assign certain confidence level to an aberration region and boundaries detected.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.