Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22743227›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2012

PurityEst: estimating purity of human tumor samples using next-generation sequencing data.

Xiaoping Su, Li Zhang, Jianping Zhang, Funda Meric-Bernstam, John N Weinstein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing 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

40 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Journal of the American Statistical Association · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Tumor Purity in Preclinical Mouse Tumor Models.Cancer research communications · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. TPES: tumor purity estimation from SNVs.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2019
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Detecting Somatic Mutations in Normal Cells.Trends in genetics : TIG · 2018
    Review
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Xiaoping SuDepartment of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. xsu1@mdanderson.org
Li Zhang
Jianping Zhang
Funda Meric-Bernstam
John N Weinstein

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Kathrin Milbury · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
U OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON CENTER FOR CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCESUL1RR024148 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI MCPHERSON, DAVID D · 2006 to 2010
$27.9M
Integrative Pipeline for Analysis & Translational Application of TCGA Data (GDAC)U24CA143883 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI AKBANI, REHAN, MILLS, GORDON B. · 2009 to 2016
$10.6M
NCI NIH HHS U24CA143883NCRR NIH HHS 3UL1RR024148NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024148PHS HHS ULTR000371
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledWe developed a novel algorithm, PurityEst, to infer the tumor purity level from the allelic differential representation of heterozygous loci with somatic mutations in a human tumor sample with a matched normal tissue using next-generation sequencing data. We applied our tool to a whole cancer genome sequencing datasets and demonstrated the accuracy of PurityEst compared with DNA copy number-based estimation. AVAILABILITY: PurityEst has been implemented in PERL and is available at http://odin.mdacc.tmc.edu/~xsu1/PurityEst.html.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsModels, GeneticAllelesBase SequenceHeterozygoteHumansNeoplasmsSequence Analysis, DNA

Identifiers

PMID22743227
PMCPMC3426843

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.