Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22537039›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2012

Reconstructing cancer genomes from paired-end sequencing data.

Layla Oesper, Anna Ritz, Sarah J Aerni, Ryan Drebin, Benjamin J Raphael

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Copy number evolution with weighted aberrations in cancer.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2020
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Phylogenetic Copy-Number Factorization of Multiple Tumor Samples.Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology · 2018
    Article
  9. Toward Recovering Allele-specific Cancer Genome Graphs.Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology · 2018
    Article
  10. Identifying simultaneous rearrangements in cancer genomes.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2018
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Layla OesperDepartment of Computer Science, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. layla@cs.brown.edu
Anna Ritz
Sarah J Aerni
Ryan Drebin
Benjamin J Raphael

Funding

Computational Approaches for Structural Variation Studies in GenomesR01HG005690 · NHGRI · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI RAPHAEL, BENJAMIN · 2011 to 2015
$2.4M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG005690
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA cancer genome is derived from the germline genome through a series of somatic mutations. Somatic structural variants - including duplications, deletions, inversions, translocations, and other rearrangements - result in a cancer genome that is a scrambling of intervals, or "blocks" of the germline genome sequence. We present an efficient algorithm for reconstructing the block organization of a cancer genome from paired-end DNA sequencing data.

resultsBy aligning paired reads from a cancer genome - and a matched germline genome, if available - to the human reference genome, we derive: (i) a partition of the reference genome into intervals; (ii) adjacencies between these intervals in the cancer genome; (iii) an estimated copy number for each interval. We formulate the Copy Number and Adjacency Genome Reconstruction Problem of determining the cancer genome as a sequence of the derived intervals that is consistent with the measured adjacencies and copy numbers. We design an efficient algorithm, called Paired-end Reconstruction of Genome Organization (PREGO), to solve this problem by reducing it to an optimization problem on an interval-adjacency graph constructed from the data. The solution to the optimization problem results in an Eulerian graph, containing an alternating Eulerian tour that corresponds to a cancer genome that is consistent with the sequencing data. We apply our algorithm to five ovarian cancer genomes that were sequenced as part of The Cancer Genome Atlas. We identify numerous rearrangements, or structural variants, in these genomes, analyze reciprocal vs. non-reciprocal rearrangements, and identify rearrangements consistent with known mechanisms of duplication such as tandem duplications and breakage/fusion/bridge (B/F/B) cycles.

conclusionsWe demonstrate that PREGO efficiently identifies complex and biologically relevant rearrangements in cancer genome sequencing data. An implementation of the PREGO algorithm is available at http://compbio.cs.brown.edu/software/.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsGenome, HumanMutationChromosome AberrationsDNA Copy Number VariationsFemaleHumansOvarian NeoplasmsSequence Analysis, DNA

Identifiers

PMID22537039
PMCPMC3358655

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.