Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32059681›Full record

ReviewGenome biology2020

Mutational signatures: experimental design and analytical framework.

Gene Koh, Xueqing Zou, Serena Nik-Zainal

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genome biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. CCAR2 functions downstream of the Shieldin complex to promote double-strand break end-joining.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Mutations inNature cancer · 2021
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Mutational Signatures: From Methods to Mechanisms.Annual review of biomedical data science · 2021
    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

3 authors.

Gene KohWellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, CB10 1SA, UK.
Xueqing ZouDepartment of Medical Genetics, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Serena Nik-ZainalDepartment of Medical Genetics, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK. snz@mrc-cu.cam.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-3840-4954

Funding

Cancer Research UK 22932Cancer Research UK 23433Cancer Research UK 23916Cancer Research UK 27815Cancer Research UK C60100/A23916Medical Research CouncilWellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mutational signatures provide a powerful alternative for understanding the pathophysiology of cancer. Currently, experimental efforts aimed at validating and understanding the etiologies of cancer-derived mutational signatures are underway. In this review, we highlight key aspects of mutational signature experimental design and describe the analytical framework. We suggest guidelines and quality control measures for handling whole-genome sequencing data for mutational signature analyses and discuss pitfalls in interpretation. We envision that improved next-generation sequencing technologies and molecular cell biology approaches will usher in the next generation of studies into the etiologies and mechanisms of mutational patterns uncovered in cancers.

Indexed as

Mutation RateAnimalsBiomarkers, TumorGenetic TestingHumansNeoplasmsPractice Guidelines as TopicWhole Genome SequencingBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID32059681
PMCPMC7023746

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.