Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28569140›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2017

An evaluation of copy number variation detection tools for cancer using whole exome sequencing data.

Fatima Zare, Michelle Dow, Nicholas Monteleone, Abdelrahman Hosny, Sheida Nabavi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing 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

77 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

17 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

5 authors.

Fatima ZareComputer Science and Engineering Department, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA.
Michelle DowBiomedical Informatics Department, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.
Nicholas MonteleoneComputer Science and Engineering Department, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA.
Abdelrahman HosnyComputer Science and Engineering Department, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA.
Sheida NabaviComputer Science and Engineering Department and Institute for Systems Genomics, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA. sheida.nabavi@uconn.edu.

Funding

Novel integrative method to detect biomakers of breast cancer resistanceR00LM011595 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT STORRS · PI NABAVI, SHEIDA · 2015 to 2017
$597k
NLM NIH HHS R00 LM011595
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecently copy number variation (CNV) has gained considerable interest as a type of genomic/genetic variation that plays an important role in disease susceptibility. Advances in sequencing technology have created an opportunity for detecting CNVs more accurately. Recently whole exome sequencing (WES) has become primary strategy for sequencing patient samples and study their genomics aberrations. However, compared to whole genome sequencing, WES introduces more biases and noise that make CNV detection very challenging. Additionally, tumors' complexity makes the detection of cancer specific CNVs even more difficult. Although many CNV detection tools have been developed since introducing NGS data, there are few tools for somatic CNV detection for WES data in cancer.

resultsIn this study, we evaluated the performance of the most recent and commonly used CNV detection tools for WES data in cancer to address their limitations and provide guidelines for developing new ones. We focused on the tools that have been designed or have the ability to detect cancer somatic aberrations. We compared the performance of the tools in terms of sensitivity and false discovery rate (FDR) using real data and simulated data. Comparative analysis of the results of the tools showed that there is a low consensus among the tools in calling CNVs. Using real data, tools show moderate sensitivity (~50% - ~80%), fair specificity (~70% - ~94%) and poor FDRs (~27% - ~60%). Also, using simulated data we observed that increasing the coverage more than 10× in exonic regions does not improve the detection power of the tools significantly.

conclusionsThe limited performance of the current CNV detection tools for WES data in cancer indicates the need for developing more efficient and precise CNV detection methods. Due to the complexity of tumors and high level of noise and biases in WES data, employing advanced novel segmentation, normalization and de-noising techniques that are designed specifically for cancer data is necessary. Also, CNV detection development suffers from the lack of a gold standard for performance evaluation. Finally, developing tools with user-friendly user interfaces and visualization features can enhance CNV studies for a broader range of users.

Indexed as

DNA Copy Number VariationsExomeSoftwareAlgorithmsFemaleGenome, HumanHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansNeoplasmsSequence Analysis, DNACancerCopy number variationSomatic aberrationsWhole-exome sequencing

Identifiers

PMID28569140
PMCPMC5452530

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.