ArticleNature biotechnology2021
Toward best practice in cancer mutation detection with whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing.
Article in Nature biotechnology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 112 papers.
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
112 citing papers in PubMed, 200 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accurate somatic small variant discovery for multiple sequencing technologies with DeepSomatic.Nature biotechnology · 2026Article
- An alignment-free strategy for circulating tumor DNA detection and tumor fraction estimation from whole-genome sequencing data.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Single-Cell Transcriptomic Analysis of Tumor Heterogeneity and the Microenvironment in Pseudomyxoma Peritonei.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- VariantMedium: sensitive and generalizable somatic point mutation calling with 3D DenseNets trained and evaluated on experimental data.Genome medicine · 2026Article
- Benchmarking Q40 sequencing for sensitive and efficient detection of rare genomic variants.Genome biology · 2026Article
- Navigating luminal heterogeneity: etiology-based proteogenomic subtyping for targeted treatment strategies in breast cancer.Molecular cancer · 2026Article
- Immune checkpoint inhibitor resistance in dMMR high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia with lynch syndrome-associated colon cancer: a case report.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Subtyping atypical eosinophilic renal cell tumours through integrated morphological, immunohistochemical, and mutational characters.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Database of recurrent mutations, an unbiased web resource to browse recurrent mutations in cancers.iScience · 2026Article
- High-Grade Serous Ovarian Carcinoma in the Genomics Era: Current Applications, Challenges and Future Directions.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Epigenomic, transcriptomic, and proteomic characterization of breast cancer cell line reference samples.Cell reports methods · 2026Article
- Article
- Comprehensive genomic profiling of neuroendocrine neoplasms of the colorectum.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Article
- Article
- Comprehensive benchmarking of methods for mutation calling in circulating tumor DNA.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Benchmarking Ploidy Estimation Methods for Bulk and Single-Cell Whole Genome Sequencing.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of false positive and false negative errors in targeted next generation sequencing.Genome biology · 2025Article
- Enabling whole genome sequencing analysis from FFPE specimens in clinical oncology.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Mutect2, Strelka2, and FreeBayes for Somatic SNV Detection in Synthetic and Clinical Whole-Exome Sequencing Data.Biomolecules · 2025Article
- Comprehensive benchmarking of somatic mutation detection by the SMaHT Network.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
52 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
90 authors at 20 institutions in 11 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Clinical applications of precision oncology require accurate tests that can distinguish true cancer-specific mutations from errors introduced at each step of next-generation sequencing (NGS). To date, no bulk sequencing study has addressed the effects of cross-site reproducibility, nor the biological, technical and computational factors that influence variant identification. Here we report a systematic interrogation of somatic mutations in paired tumor-normal cell lines to identify factors affecting detection reproducibility and accuracy at six different centers. Using whole-genome sequencing (WGS) and whole-exome sequencing (WES), we evaluated the reproducibility of different sample types with varying input amount and tumor purity, and multiple library construction protocols, followed by processing with nine bioinformatics pipelines. We found that read coverage and callers affected both WGS and WES reproducibility, but WES performance was influenced by insert fragment size, genomic copy content and the global imbalance score (GIV; G > T/C > A). Finally, taking into account library preparation protocol, tumor content, read coverage and bioinformatics processes concomitantly, we recommend actionable practices to improve the reproducibility and accuracy of NGS experiments for cancer mutation detection.
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.