ArticleTurkish journal of biology = Turk biyoloji dergisi2021
Detailed evaluation of cancer sequencing pipelines in different microenvironments and heterogeneity levels.
Article in Turkish journal of biology = Turk biyoloji dergisi, 2021. 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.
- COSAP: Comparative Sequencing Analysis Platform.BMC bioinformatics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The importance of next generation sequencing (NGS) rises in cancer research as accessing this key technology becomes easier for researchers. The sequence data created by NGS technologies must be processed by various bioinformatics algorithms within a pipeline in order to convert raw data to meaningful information. Mapping and variant calling are the two main steps of these analysis pipelines, and many algorithms are available for these steps. Therefore, detailed benchmarking of these algorithms in different scenarios is crucial for the efficient utilization of sequencing technologies. In this study, we compared the performance of twelve pipelines (three mapping and four variant discovery algorithms) with recommended settings to capture single nucleotide variants. We observed significant discrepancy in variant calls among tested pipelines for different heterogeneity levels in real and simulated samples with overall high specificity and low sensitivity. Additional to the individual evaluation of pipelines, we also constructed and tested the performance of pipeline combinations. In these analyses, we observed that certain pipelines complement each other much better than others and display superior performance than individual pipelines. This suggests that adhering to a single pipeline is not optimal for cancer sequencing analysis and sample heterogeneity should be considered in algorithm optimization.
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.