Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34856988›Full record

ArticleBMC medical genomics2021

An adaptive method of defining negative mutation status for multi-sample comparison using next-generation sequencing.

Nicholas Hutson, Fenglin Zhan, James Graham, Mitsuko Murakami, Han Zhang, Sujana Ganaparti, Qiang Hu, Li Yan, Changxing Ma, Song Liu and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical genomics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

12 authors.

Nicholas Hutson *Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA.
Fenglin Zhan *Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA.
James GrahamDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA.
Mitsuko MurakamiCenter for Personalized Medicine, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA.
Han ZhangDepartment of Biostatistics, University At Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA.
Sujana GanapartiDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA.
Qiang HuDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA.
Li YanDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA.
Changxing MaDepartment of Biostatistics, University At Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA.
Song LiuDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA.
Jun XieDepartment of Statistics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA. junxie@purdue.edu.
Lei WeiDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA. lei.wei@roswellpark.org.ORCID 0000-0002-1881-8666

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMulti-sample comparison is commonly used in cancer genomics studies. By using next-generation sequencing (NGS), a mutation's status in a specific sample can be measured by the number of reads supporting mutant or wildtype alleles. When no mutant reads are detected, it could represent either a true negative mutation status or a false negative due to an insufficient number of reads, so-called "coverage". To minimize the chance of false-negative, we should consider the mutation status as "unknown" instead of "negative" when the coverage is inadequately low. There is no established method for determining the coverage threshold between negative and unknown statuses. A common solution is to apply a universal minimum coverage (UMC). However, this method relies on an arbitrarily chosen threshold, and it does not take into account the mutations' relative abundances, which can vary dramatically by the type of mutations. The result could be misclassification between negative and unknown statuses.

methodsWe propose an adaptive mutation-specific negative (MSN) method to improve the discrimination between negative and unknown mutation statuses. For a specific mutation, a non-positive sample is compared with every known positive sample to test the null hypothesis that they may contain the same frequency of mutant reads. The non-positive sample can only be claimed as "negative" when this null hypothesis is rejected with all known positive samples; otherwise, the status would be "unknown".

resultsWe first compared the performance of MSN and UMC methods in a simulated dataset containing varying tumor cell fractions. Only the MSN methods appropriately assigned negative statuses for samples with both high- and low-tumor cell fractions. When evaluated on a real dual-platform single-cell sequencing dataset, the MSN method not only provided more accurate assessments of negative statuses but also yielded three times more available data after excluding the "unknown" statuses, compared with the UMC method.

conclusionsWe developed a new adaptive method for distinguishing unknown from negative statuses in multi-sample comparison NGS data. The method can provide more accurate negative statuses than the conventional UMC method and generate a remarkably higher amount of available data by reducing unnecessary "unknown" calls.

Indexed as

High-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingNeoplasmsGenomicsHumansMutationGenetic testingLiquid biopsyNegative statusNext-generation sequencingPersonalized medicineTumor heterogeneity

Identifiers

PMID34856988
PMCPMC8638096

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.