ArticlePloS one2011
A multi-sample based method for identifying common CNVs in normal human genomic structure using high-resolution aCGH data.
Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chromosomal quality control in hPSCs: A practical guide to SNP array analysis with GenomeStudio.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Article
- MSeq-CNV: accurate detection of Copy Number Variation from Sequencing of Multiple samples.Scientific reports · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt is difficult to identify copy number variations (CNV) in normal human genomic data due to noise and non-linear relationships between different genomic regions and signal intensity. A high-resolution array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) containing 42 million probes, which is very large compared to previous arrays, was recently published. Most existing CNV detection algorithms do not work well because of noise associated with the large amount of input data and because most of the current methods were not designed to analyze normal human samples. Normal human genome analysis often requires a joint approach across multiple samples. However, the majority of existing methods can only identify CNVs from a single sample. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL
findingsWe developed a multi-sample-based genomic variations detector (MGVD) that uses segmentation to identify common breakpoints across multiple samples and a k-means-based clustering strategy. Unlike previous methods, MGVD simultaneously considers multiple samples with different genomic intensities and identifies CNVs and CNV zones (CNVZs); CNVZ is a more precise measure of the location of a genomic variant than the CNV region (CNVR). CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE: We designed a specialized algorithm to detect common CNVs from extremely high-resolution multi-sample aCGH data. MGVD showed high sensitivity and a low false discovery rate for a simulated data set, and outperformed most current methods when real, high-resolution HapMap datasets were analyzed. MGVD also had the fastest runtime compared to the other algorithms evaluated when actual, high-resolution aCGH data were analyzed. The CNVZs identified by MGVD can be used in association studies for revealing relationships between phenotypes and genomic aberrations. Our algorithm was developed with standard C++ and is available in Linux and MS Windows format in the STL library. It is freely available at: http://embio.yonsei.ac.kr/~Park/mgvd.php.
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.