Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30400818›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2018

Combining accurate tumor genome simulation with crowdsourcing to benchmark somatic structural variant detection.

Anna Y Lee, Adam D Ewing, Kyle Ellrott, Yin Hu, Kathleen E Houlahan, J Christopher Bare, Shadrielle Melijah G Espiritu, Vincent Huang, Kristen Dang, Zechen Chong and 13 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing 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

33 citing papers in PubMed.

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

23 authors.

Anna Y LeeOntario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Adam D EwingDepartment of Biomolecular Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA.
Kyle EllrottDepartment of Biomolecular Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA.
Yin HuSage Bionetworks, Seattle, WA, USA.
Kathleen E HoulahanOntario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
J Christopher BareSage Bionetworks, Seattle, WA, USA.
Shadrielle Melijah G EspirituOntario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Vincent HuangOntario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Kristen DangSage Bionetworks, Seattle, WA, USA.
Zechen ChongDepartment of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Cristian CaloianOntario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Takafumi N YamaguchiOntario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
ICGC-TCGA DREAM Somatic Mutation Calling Challenge Participants
Michael R KellenSage Bionetworks, Seattle, WA, USA.
Ken ChenDepartment of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Thea C NormanSage Bionetworks, Seattle, WA, USA.
Stephen H FriendSage Bionetworks, Seattle, WA, USA.
Justin GuinneySage Bionetworks, Seattle, WA, USA.
Gustavo StolovitzkyIBM Computational Biology Center, T.J.Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY, USA.
David HausslerDepartment of Biomolecular Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA.
Adam A MargolinComputational Biology Program, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. adam.margolin@mssm.edu.
Joshua M StuartDepartment of Biomolecular Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA. jstuart@ucsc.edu.
Paul C BoutrosOntario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. paul.boutros@oicr.on.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-0553-7520

Funding

UCSC-Buck Inst. Genome Data Analysis Center for TCGA Research Network (GDAC)U24CA143858 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ · PI BENZ, CHRISTOPHER, HAUSSLER, DAVID H · 2009 to 2016
$8.9M
BIGDATA: Mid-Scale DCM: DA: ESCE: Discovering Molecular ProcessesR01CA180778 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ · PI STUART, JOSHUA MICHAEL · 2013 to 2017
$3.5M
New Integrative Pathway Analysis Methods to Predict Biomedical OutcomesR01GM109031 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ · PI STUART, JOSHUA MICHAEL · 2014 to 2018
$2.9M
CIHRNCI NIH HHS R01 CA180778NCI NIH HHS U24 CA143858NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM109031NIH HHS R01-CA180778, U24-CA143858
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe phenotypes of cancer cells are driven in part by somatic structural variants. Structural variants can initiate tumors, enhance their aggressiveness, and provide unique therapeutic opportunities. Whole-genome sequencing of tumors can allow exhaustive identification of the specific structural variants present in an individual cancer, facilitating both clinical diagnostics and the discovery of novel mutagenic mechanisms. A plethora of somatic structural variant detection algorithms have been created to enable these discoveries; however, there are no systematic benchmarks of them. Rigorous performance evaluation of somatic structural variant detection methods has been challenged by the lack of gold standards, extensive resource requirements, and difficulties arising from the need to share personal genomic information.

resultsTo facilitate structural variant detection algorithm evaluations, we create a robust simulation framework for somatic structural variants by extending the BAMSurgeon algorithm. We then organize and enable a crowdsourced benchmarking within the ICGC-TCGA DREAM Somatic Mutation Calling Challenge (SMC-DNA). We report here the results of structural variant benchmarking on three different tumors, comprising 204 submissions from 15 teams. In addition to ranking methods, we identify characteristic error profiles of individual algorithms and general trends across them. Surprisingly, we find that ensembles of analysis pipelines do not always outperform the best individual method, indicating a need for new ways to aggregate somatic structural variant detection approaches.

conclusionsThe synthetic tumors and somatic structural variant detection leaderboards remain available as a community benchmarking resource, and BAMSurgeon is available at https://github.com/adamewing/bamsurgeon .

Indexed as

BenchmarkingComputer SimulationCrowdsourcingGenetic VariationGenome, HumanAlgorithmsDatabases, GeneticGenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansNeoplasmsSoftwareBenchmarkingCancer genomicsCrowdsourcingSimulationSomatic mutationsStructural variantsWhole-genome sequencing

Identifiers

PMID30400818
PMCPMC6219177

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.