Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27986087›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2016

A novel independence test for somatic alterations in cancer shows that biology drives mutual exclusivity but chance explains most co-occurrence.

Sander Canisius, John W M Martens, Lodewyk F A Wessels

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 97 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
97citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

97 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Omics in Cutaneous Melanoma.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2025
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

37 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Sander CanisiusDepartment of Molecular Carcinogenesis, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, Amsterdam, 1066 CX, The Netherlands.
John W M MartensDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Lodewyk F A WesselsDepartment of Molecular Carcinogenesis, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, Amsterdam, 1066 CX, The Netherlands. l.wessels@nki.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In cancer, mutually exclusive or co-occurring somatic alterations across genes can suggest functional interactions. Existing tests for such patterns make the unrealistic assumption of identical gene alteration probabilities across tumors. We present Discrete Independence Statistic Controlling for Observations with Varying Event Rates (DISCOVER), a novel test that is more sensitive than other methods and controls its false positive rate. A pan-cancer analysis using DISCOVER finds no evidence for widespread co-occurrence, and most co-occurrences previously detected do not exceed expectation by chance. Many mutual exclusivities are identified involving well-known genes related to cell cycle and growth factor signaling, as well as lesser known regulators of Hedgehog signaling.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyAlgorithmsGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticHedgehog ProteinsHumansMutationNeoplasmsSignal TransductionHedgehog ProteinsComputational biologyCo-occurrenceMutual exclusivity

Identifiers

PMID27986087
PMCPMC5162102

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.