ReviewContemporary oncology (Poznan, Poland)2015
Computational characterisation of cancer molecular profiles derived using next generation sequencing.
Review in Contemporary oncology (Poznan, Poland), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deubiquitinating enzymes: Key regulators of ferroptosis and pyroptosis and novel targets for cancer intervention.International journal of biological sciences · 2025Review
- Quantification of long non-coding RNAs using qRT-PCR: comparison of different cDNA synthesis methods and RNA stability.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2021Article
- Allele balance bias identifies systematic genotyping errors and false disease associations.Human mutation · 2019Article
- lncRNA in HNSCC: challenges and potential.Contemporary oncology (Poznan, Poland) · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our current understanding of cancer genetics is grounded on the principle that cancer arises from a clone that has accumulated the requisite somatically acquired genetic aberrations, leading to the malignant transformation. It also results in aberrent of gene and protein expression. Next generation sequencing (NGS) or deep sequencing platforms are being used to create large catalogues of changes in copy numbers, mutations, structural variations, gene fusions, gene expression, and other types of information for cancer patients. However, inferring different types of biological changes from raw reads generated using the sequencing experiments is algorithmically and computationally challenging. In this article, we outline common steps for the quality control and processing of NGS data. We highlight the importance of accurate and application-specific alignment of these reads and the methodological steps and challenges in obtaining different types of information. We comment on the importance of integrating these data and building infrastructure to analyse it. We also provide exhaustive lists of available software to obtain information and point the readers to articles comparing software for deeper insight in specialised areas. We hope that the article will guide readers in choosing the right tools for analysing oncogenomic datasets.
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.