Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28423598›Full record

ArticleOncotarget2017

Next generation mapping reveals novel large genomic rearrangements in prostate cancer.

Weerachai Jaratlerdsiri, Eva K F Chan, Desiree C Petersen, Claire Yang, Peter I Croucher, M S Riana Bornman, Palak Sheth, Vanessa M Hayes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Extrachromosomal DNA in Cancer.Annual review of genomics and human genetics · 2022
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Structural variation in the sequencing era.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2020
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Genome-Based Classification and Therapy of Prostate Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

8 authors.

Weerachai JaratlerdsiriLaboratory for Human Comparative and Prostate Cancer Genomics, Genomics and Epigenetics Division, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Darlinghurst, Australia.
Eva K F ChanLaboratory for Human Comparative and Prostate Cancer Genomics, Genomics and Epigenetics Division, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Darlinghurst, Australia.
Desiree C PetersenLaboratory for Human Comparative and Prostate Cancer Genomics, Genomics and Epigenetics Division, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Darlinghurst, Australia.
Claire YangBionano Genomics Inc., San Diego, California, USA.
Peter I CroucherSt Vincent's Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Randwick, Australia.
M S Riana BornmanSchool of Health Systems and Public Health, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
Palak ShethBionano Genomics Inc., San Diego, California, USA.
Vanessa M HayesLaboratory for Human Comparative and Prostate Cancer Genomics, Genomics and Epigenetics Division, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Darlinghurst, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Complex genomic rearrangements are common molecular events driving prostate carcinogenesis. Clinical significance, however, has yet to be fully elucidated. Detecting the full range and subtypes of large structural variants (SVs), greater than one kilobase in length, is challenging using clinically feasible next generation sequencing (NGS) technologies. Next generation mapping (NGM) is a new technology that allows for the interrogation of megabase length DNA molecules outside the detection range of single-base resolution NGS. In this study, we sought to determine the feasibility of using the Irys (Bionano Genomics Inc.) nanochannel NGM technology to generate whole genome maps of a primary prostate tumor and matched blood from a Gleason score 7 (4 + 3), ETS-fusion negative prostate cancer patient. With an effective mapped coverage of 35X and sequence coverage of 60X, and an estimated 43% tumor purity, we identified 85 large somatic structural rearrangements and 6,172 smaller somatic variants, respectively. The vast majority of the large SVs (89%), of which 73% are insertions, were not detectable ab initio using high-coverage short-read NGS. However, guided manual inspection of single NGS reads and de novo assembled scaffolds of NGM-derived candidate regions allowed for confirmation of 94% of these large SVs, with over a third impacting genes with oncogenic potential. From this single-patient study, the first cancer study to integrate NGS and NGM data, we hypothesise that there exists a novel spectrum of large genomic rearrangements in prostate cancer, that these large genomic rearrangements are likely early events in tumorigenesis, and they have potential to enhance taxonomy.

Indexed as

Genomic Structural VariationChromosome MappingComputer SimulationDNA, NeoplasmFeasibility StudiesGene DeletionGene RearrangementGenome, HumanGenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansINDEL MutationMaleMiddle AgedMutagenesis, InsertionalNeoplasm GradingDNA, Neoplasmnext generation mappingnext generation sequencingprostate cancerstructural genomic rearrangements

Identifiers

PMID28423598
PMCPMC5410329

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.