ArticleCancer genetics
Concordance of copy number alterations using a common analytic pipeline for genome-wide analysis of Illumina and Affymetrix genotyping data: a report from the Children's Oncology Group.
Article in Cancer genetics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Copy number alterations (CNAs) are a hallmark of pediatric cancer genomes. An increasing number of research groups use multiple platforms and software packages to detect and analyze CNAs. However, different platforms have experimental and analysis-specific biases that may yield different results. We sought to estimate the concordance of CNAs in children with de novo acute myeloid leukemia between two experimental platforms: Affymetrix SNP 6.0 array and Illumina OmniQuad 2.5 BeadChip. Forty-five paired tumor-remission samples were genotyped on both platforms, and CNAs were estimated from total signal intensity and allelic contrast values using the allele-specific copy number analysis of tumors (ASCAT) algorithm. The two platforms were comparable in detection of CNAs, each missing only two segments from a total of 42 CNAs (4.6%). Overall, there was an interplatform agreement of 96% for allele-specific tumor profiles. However, poor quality samples with low signal/noise ratios showed a high rate of false-positive segments independent of the genotyping platform. These results demonstrate that a common analytic pipeline can be utilized for SNP array data from these two platforms. The customized programming template for the preprocessing, data integration, and analysis is publicly available at https://github.com/AplenCHOP/affyLumCNA.
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.