ArticleGenome biology2018
Combining accurate tumor genome simulation with crowdsourcing to benchmark somatic structural variant detection.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
33 citing papers in PubMed.
- Whole genome characterization of patient-derived lung cancer organoids.Translational lung cancer research · 2025Article
- MRDagent: iterative and adaptive parameter optimization for stable ctDNA-based MRD detection in heterogeneous samples.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- MRDadaptis: self-adaptive parameter configuration enhances minimal residual disease detection in heterogeneous ctDNA samples.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- The Germline and Somatic Origins of Prostate Cancer Heterogeneity.Cancer discovery · 2025Article
- Crowd-sourced benchmarking of single-sample tumor subclonal reconstruction.Nature biotechnology · 2025Article
- ONCOLINER: A new solution for monitoring, improving, and harmonizing somatic variant calling across genomic oncology centers.Cell genomics · 2024Article
- Neotelomeres and telomere-spanning chromosomal arm fusions in cancer genomes revealed by long-read sequencing.Cell genomics · 2024Article
- Variant calling and benchmarking in an era of complete human genome sequences.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2023Review
- ConanVarvar: a versatile tool for the detection of large syndromic copy number variation from whole-genome sequencing data.BMC bioinformatics · 2023Article
- Structural variant analysis of a cancer reference cell line sample using multiple sequencing technologies.Genome biology · 2022Article
- Personalized genome assembly for accurate cancer somatic mutation discovery using tumor-normal paired reference samples.Genome biology · 2022Article
- A multi-platform reference for somatic structural variation detection.Cell genomics · 2022Article
- PrecisionFDA Truth Challenge V2: Calling variants from short and long reads in difficult-to-map regions.Cell genomics · 2022Article
- Computational analysis of cancer genome sequencing data.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2022Review
- Towards accurate and reliable resolution of structural variants for clinical diagnosis.Genome biology · 2022Review
- Meerkat: An Algorithm to Reliably Identify Structural Variations and Predict Their Forming Mechanisms.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Benchmarking pipelines for subclonal deconvolution of bulk tumour sequencing data.Nature communications · 2021Article
- Establishing community reference samples, data and call sets for benchmarking cancer mutation detection using whole-genome sequencing.Nature biotechnology · 2021Article
- A community challenge to evaluate RNA-seq, fusion detection, and isoform quantification methods for cancer discovery.Cell systems · 2021Article
- The Application of Control Materials for Ongoing Quality Management of Next-Generation Sequencing in a Clinical Genetic Laboratory.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.