ArticleCancer medicine2019
Massive computational identification of somatic variants in exonic splicing enhancers using The Cancer Genome Atlas.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Massive computational identification of somatic variants in exonic splicing enhancers using The Cancer Genome Atlas.Cancer medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Owing to the development of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies, a large number of somatic variants have been identified in various types of cancer. However, the functional significance of most somatic variants remains unknown. Somatic variants that occur in exonic splicing enhancer (ESE) regions are thought to prevent serine and arginine-rich (SR) proteins from binding to ESE sequence motifs, which leads to exon skipping. We computationally identified somatic variants in ESEs by compiling numerous open-access datasets from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). Using somatic variants and RNA-seq data from 9635 patients across 32 TCGA projects, we identified 646 ESE-disrupting variants. The false positive rate of our method, estimated using a permutation test, was approximately 1%. Of these ESE-disrupting variants, approximately 71% were located in the binding motifs of four classical SR proteins. ESE-disrupting variants occurred in proportion to the number of somatic variants, but not necessarily in the specific genes associated with the biological processes of cancer. Existing bioinformatics tools could not predict the pathogenicity of ESE-disrupting variants identified in this study, although these variants could cause exon skipping. We demonstrated that ESE-disrupting nonsense variants tended to escape nonsense-mediated decay surveillance. Using integrated analyses of open access data, we could specifically identify ESE-disrupting variants. We have generated a powerful tool, which can handle datasets without normal samples or raw data, and thus contribute to reducing variants of uncertain significance because our statistical approach only uses the exon-junction read counts from the tumor samples.
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.