Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26159513›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2015

Mobile element insertions are frequent in oesophageal adenocarcinomas and can mislead paired-end sequencing analysis.

Anna L Paterson, Jamie M J Weaver, Matthew D Eldridge, Simon Tavaré, Rebecca C Fitzgerald, Paul A W Edwards, OCCAMs Consortium

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. NRG1 fusions in breast cancer.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

7 authors.

Anna L PatersonDepartment of Pathology, University of Cambridge, Hutchison-MRC Research Centre, Cambridge, UK. alp37@cam.ac.uk.
Jamie M J WeaverDepartment of Pathology, University of Cambridge, Hutchison-MRC Research Centre, Cambridge, UK. jmjw2@cam.ac.uk.
Matthew D EldridgeCancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. Matthew.Eldridge@cruk.cam.ac.uk.
Simon TavaréCancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. s.tavare@damtp.cam.ac.uk.
Rebecca C FitzgeraldMRC Cancer Unit, Hutchison-MRC Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. rcf29@MRC-CU.cam.ac.uk.
Paul A W EdwardsDepartment of Pathology, University of Cambridge, Hutchison-MRC Research Centre, Cambridge, UK. pawe1@cam.ac.uk.
OCCAMs Consortium

Funding

Cancer Research UK 14545Cancer Research UK 15874Cancer Research UK 20406Cancer Research UK C1023/A14545Cancer Research UK C14303/A17197Cancer Research UK C14478/A15874Medical Research CouncilWellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMobile elements are active in the human genome, both in the germline and cancers, where they can mutate driver genes.

resultsWhile analysing whole genome paired-end sequencing of oesophageal adenocarcinomas to find genomic rearrangements, we identified three ways in which new mobile element insertions appear in the data, resembling translocation or insertion junctions: inserts where unique sequence has been transduced by an L1 (Long interspersed element 1) mobile element; novel inserts that are confidently, but often incorrectly, mapped by alignment software to L1s or polyA tracts in the reference sequence; and a combination of these two ways, where different sequences within one insert are mapped to different loci. We identified nine unique sequences that were transduced by neighbouring L1s, both L1s in the reference genome and L1s not present in the reference. Many of the resulting inserts were small fragments that include little or no recognisable mobile element sequence. We found 6 loci in the reference genome to which sequence reads from inserts were frequently mapped, probably erroneously, by alignment software: these were either L1 sequence or particularly long polyA runs. Inserts identified from such apparent rearrangement junctions averaged 16 inserts/tumour, range 0-153 insertions in 43 tumours. However, many inserts would not be detected by mapping the sequences to the reference genome, because they do not include sufficient mappable sequence. To estimate total somatic inserts we searched for polyA sequences that were not present in the matched normal or other normals from the same tumour batch, and were not associated with known polymorphisms. Samples of these candidate inserts were verified by sequencing across them or manual inspection of surrounding reads: at least 85 % were somatic and resembled L1-mediated events, most including L1Hs sequence. Approximately 100 such inserts were detected per tumour on average (range zero to approximately 700).

conclusionsSomatic mobile elements insertions are abundant in these tumours, with over 75 % of cases having a number of novel inserts detected. The inserts create a variety of problems for the interpretation of paired-end sequencing data.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAgedAged, 80 and overCell Line, TumorDNA Transposable ElementsEsophageal NeoplasmsFemaleGene RearrangementGenome, HumanHumansLong Interspersed Nucleotide ElementsMaleMiddle AgedMutagenesis, InsertionalPolymorphism, GeneticSequence Analysis, DNADNA Transposable Elements

Identifiers

PMID26159513
PMCPMC4498532

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.