Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30949446›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2019

Leveraging Spatial Variation in Tumor Purity for Improved Somatic Variant Calling of Archival Tumor Only Samples.

Rebecca F Halperin, Winnie S Liang, Sidharth Kulkarni, Erica E Tassone, Jonathan Adkins, Daniel Enriquez, Nhan L Tran, Nicole C Hank, James Newell, Chinnappa Kodira and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

14 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Rebecca F HalperinQuantitative Medicine and Systems Biology Division, Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Winnie S LiangIntegrated Cancer Genomics Division, Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Sidharth KulkarniQuantitative Medicine and Systems Biology Division, Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Erica E TassoneIntegrated Cancer Genomics Division, Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Jonathan AdkinsIntegrated Cancer Genomics Division, Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Daniel EnriquezIntegrated Cancer Genomics Division, Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Nhan L TranMayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, United States.
Nicole C HankImaging Endpoints, Scottsdale, AZ, United States.
James NewellHonorHealth Scottsdale Shea Medical Center, Scottsdale, AZ, United States.
Chinnappa KodiraGE Global Research Center, Niskayuna, NY, United States.
Ronald KornImaging Endpoints, Scottsdale, AZ, United States.
Michael E BerensCancer and Cell Biology Division, Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Seungchan KimPrairie View A&M University, Prairie View, TX, United States.
Sara A ByronIntegrated Cancer Genomics Division, Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Translational Genomics Research Institute · USHonorHealth · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · USPrairie View A&M University · USPureTech (United States) · USVitalant · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Archival tumor samples represent a rich resource of annotated specimens for translational genomics research. However, standard variant calling approaches require a matched normal sample from the same individual, which is often not available in the retrospective setting, making it difficult to distinguish between true somatic variants and individual-specific germline variants. Archival sections often contain adjacent normal tissue, but this tissue can include infiltrating tumor cells. As existing comparative somatic variant callers are designed to exclude variants present in the normal sample, a novel approach is required to leverage adjacent normal tissue with infiltrating tumor cells for somatic variant calling. Here we present lumosVar 2.0, a software package designed to jointly analyze multiple samples from the same patient, built upon our previous single sample tumor only variant caller lumosVar 1.0. The approach assumes that the allelic fraction of somatic variants and germline variants follow different patterns as tumor content and copy number state change. lumosVar 2.0 estimates allele specific copy number and tumor sample fractions from the data, and uses a to model to determine expected allelic fractions for somatic and germline variants and to classify variants accordingly. To evaluate the utility of lumosVar 2.0 to jointly call somatic variants with tumor and adjacent normal samples, we used a glioblastoma dataset with matched high and low tumor content and germline whole exome sequencing data (for true somatic variants) available for each patient. Both sensitivity and positive predictive value were improved when analyzing the high tumor and low tumor samples jointly compared to analyzing the samples individually or

Indexed as

cancer genomicscancer hotspot mutationsnext generation sequencingsomatic variant callingtumor exome sequencingtumor-only sequencing

Identifiers

PMID30949446
PMCPMC6435595
OpenAlexW2912162118

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.