ArticleGenomics & informatics2022
Comparison of the copy-neutral loss of heterozygosity identified from whole-exome sequencing data using three different tools.
Article in Genomics & informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Loss of heterozygosity (LOH) is a genomic aberration. In some cases, LOH can be generated without changing the copy number, which is called copy-neutral LOH (CN-LOH). CN-LOH frequently occurs in various human diseases, including cancer. However, the biological and clinical implications of CN-LOH for human diseases have not been well studied. In this study, we compared the performance of CN-LOH determination using three commonly used tools. For an objective comparison, we analyzed CN-LOH profiles from single-nucleotide polymorphism array data from 10 colon adenocarcinoma patients, which were used as the reference for comparison with the CN-LOHs obtained through whole-exome sequencing (WES) data of the same patients using three different analysis tools (FACETS, Nexus, and Sequenza). The majority of the CN-LOHs identified from the WES data were consistent with the reference data. However, some of the CN-LOHs identified from the WES data were not consistent between the three tools, and the consistency with the reference CNLOH profile was also different. The Jaccard index of the CN-LOHs using FACETS (0.84 ± 0.29; mean value, 0.73) was significantly higher than that of Nexus (0.55 ± 0.29; mean value, 0.50; p = 0.02) or Sequenza (0 ± 0.41; mean value, 0.34; p = 0.04). FACETS showed the highest area under the curve value. Taken together, of the three CN-LOH analysis tools, FACETS showed the best performance in identifying CN-LOHs from The Cancer Genome Atlas colon adenocarcinoma WES data. Our results will be helpful in exploring the biological or clinical implications of CN-LOH for human diseases.
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.