Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30423071›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2018

Computational enhancement of single-cell sequences for inferring tumor evolution.

Sayaka Miura, Louise A Huuki, Tiffany Buturla, Tracy Vu, Karen Gomez, Sudhir Kumar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Somatic variant calling from single-cell DNA sequencing data.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2022
    Review
  10. Tumors Are Evolutionary Island-Like Ecosystems.Genome biology and evolution · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Distance measures for tumor evolutionary trees.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2020
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
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

6 authors.

Sayaka MiuraInstitute for Genomics and Evolutionary Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Louise A HuukiInstitute for Genomics and Evolutionary Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Tiffany ButurlaInstitute for Genomics and Evolutionary Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Tracy VuInstitute for Genomics and Evolutionary Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Karen GomezInstitute for Genomics and Evolutionary Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Sudhir KumarInstitute for Genomics and Evolutionary Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Funding

EVOLUTIONARY BIOINFORMATICS OF TUMOR PROFILESR01LM012487 · NLM · TEMPLE UNIV OF THE COMMONWEALTH · PI KUMAR, SUDHIR · 2016 to 2018
$1.0M
Bayesian Evolution-Aware Methods for tumor single cell sequencesR21LM012758 · NLM · TEMPLE UNIV OF THE COMMONWEALTH · PI MIURA, SAYAKA · 2017 to 2018
$392k
NLM NIH HHS R01 LM012487NLM NIH HHS R21 LM012758
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Motivation: Tumor sequencing has entered an exciting phase with the advent of single-cell techniques that are revolutionizing the assessment of single nucleotide variation (SNV) at the highest cellular resolution. However, state-of-the-art single-cell sequencing technologies produce data with many missing bases (MBs) and incorrect base designations that lead to false-positive (FP) and false-negative (FN) detection of somatic mutations. While computational methods are available to make biological inferences in the presence of these errors, the accuracy of the imputed MBs and corrected FPs and FNs remains unknown. Results: Using computer simulated datasets, we assessed the robustness performance of four existing methods (OncoNEM, SCG, SCITE and SiFit) and one new method (BEAM). BEAM is a Bayesian evolution-aware method that improves the quality of single-cell sequences by using the intrinsic evolutionary information in the single-cell data in a molecular phylogenetic framework. Overall, BEAM and SCITE performed the best. Most of the methods imputed MBs with high accuracy, but effective detection and correction of FPs and FNs is a challenge, especially for small datasets. Analysis of an empirical dataset shows that computational methods can improve both the quality of tumor single-cell sequences and their utility for biological inference. In conclusion, tumor cells descend from pre-existing cells, which creates evolutionary continuity in single-cell sequencing datasets. This information enables BEAM and other methods to correctly impute missing data and incorrect base assignments, but correction of FPs and FNs remains challenging when the number of SNVs sampled is small relative to the number of cells sequenced. Availability and implementation: BEAM is available on the web at https://github.com/SayakaMiura/BEAM.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansNeoplasmsPhylogenySingle-Cell Analysis

Identifiers

PMID30423071
PMCPMC6129264

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.