Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26416038›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2015

VEGAWES: variational segmentation on whole exome sequencing for copy number detection.

Samreen Anjum, Sandro Morganella, Fulvio D'Angelo, Antonio Iavarone, Michele Ceccarelli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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.

Samreen AnjumComputational Sciences and Engineering, Qatar Computing Research Institute, Doha, P. O. Box 5825, Qatar. sshaikh2@qf.org.qa.
Sandro MorganellaEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute, (EMBL -EBI), Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Cambridge, CB10 1SD, UK. sandro@ebi.ac.uk.
Fulvio D'AngeloBIOGEM, Ariano Irpino, 83031, Italy. fulvio.dan13@gmail.com.
Antonio IavaroneInstitute for Cancer Genetics, Columbia University, New York, 10027, USA. ai2102@columbia.edu.
Michele CeccarelliComputational Sciences and Engineering, Qatar Computing Research Institute, Doha, P. O. Box 5825, Qatar. m.ceccarelli@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCopy number variations are important in the detection and progression of significant tumors and diseases. Recently, Whole Exome Sequencing is gaining popularity with copy number variations detection due to low cost and better efficiency. In this work, we developed VEGAWES for accurate and robust detection of copy number variations on WES data. VEGAWES is an extension to a variational based segmentation algorithm, VEGA: Variational estimator for genomic aberrations, which has previously outperformed several algorithms on segmenting array comparative genomic hybridization data.

resultsWe tested this algorithm on synthetic data and 100 Glioblastoma Multiforme primary tumor samples. The results on the real data were analyzed with segmentation obtained from Single-nucleotide polymorphism data as ground truth. We compared our results with two other segmentation algorithms and assessed the performance based on accuracy and time.

conclusionsIn terms of both accuracy and time, VEGAWES provided better results on the synthetic data and tumor samples demonstrating its potential in robust detection of aberrant regions in the genome.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsArea Under CurveBrain NeoplasmsDNADNA Copy Number VariationsGlioblastomaHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansPolymorphism, Single NucleotideROC CurveSequence Analysis, DNADNA

Identifiers

PMID26416038
PMCPMC4587906

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.