Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31419933›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2019

RF_Purify: a novel tool for comprehensive analysis of tumor-purity in methylation array data based on random forest regression.

Pascal David Johann, Natalie Jäger, Stefan M Pfister, Martin Sill

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing 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

38 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Response Rate and Molecular Correlates to Encorafenib and Binimetinib in BRAF-V600E Mutant High-Grade Glioma.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2024
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Subtyping Burkitt Lymphoma by DNA Methylation.Genes, chromosomes & cancer · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Pascal David JohannDivision of Pediatric Neurooncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. p.johann@kitz-heidelberg.de.
Natalie JägerDivision of Pediatric Neurooncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Stefan M PfisterDivision of Pediatric Neurooncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Martin SillDivision of Pediatric Neurooncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.

Funding

Heidelberg School of Oncology (none assigned)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith the advent of array-based techniques to measure methylation levels in primary tumor samples, systematic investigations of methylomes have widely been performed on a large number of tumor entities. Most of these approaches are not based on measuring individual cell methylation but rather the bulk tumor sample DNA, which contains a mixture of tumor cells, infiltrating immune cells and other stromal components. This raises questions about the purity of a certain tumor sample, given the varying degrees of stromal infiltration in different entities. Previous methods to infer tumor purity require or are based on the use of matching control samples which are rarely available. Here we present a novel, reference free method to quantify tumor purity, based on two Random Forest classifiers, which were trained on ABSOLUTE as well as ESTIMATE purity values from TCGA tumor samples. We subsequently apply this method to a previously published, large dataset of brain tumors, proving that these models perform well in datasets that have not been characterized with respect to tumor purity .

resultsUsing two gold standard methods to infer purity - the ABSOLUTE score based on whole genome sequencing data and the ESTIMATE score based on gene expression data- we have optimized Random Forest classifiers to predict tumor purity in entities that were contained in the TCGA project. We validated these classifiers using an independent test data set and cross-compared it to other methods which have been applied to the TCGA datasets (such as ESTIMATE and LUMP). Using Illumina methylation array data of brain tumor entities (as published in Capper et al. (Nature 555:469-474,2018)) we applied this model to estimate tumor purity and find that subgroups of brain tumors display substantial differences in tumor purity.

conclusionsRandom forest- based tumor purity prediction is a well suited tool to extrapolate gold standard measures of purity to novel methylation array datasets. In contrast to other available methylation based tumor purity estimation methods, our classifiers do not need a priori knowledge about the tumor entity or matching control tissue to predict tumor purity.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisSoftwareBrain NeoplasmsDNA MethylationDNA, NeoplasmHumansNeoplasmsReproducibility of ResultsDNA, Neoplasm

Identifiers

PMID31419933
PMCPMC6697926

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.