ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2022
Detection of oncogenic and clinically actionable mutations in cancer genomes critically depends on variant calling tools.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accurate somatic small variant discovery for multiple sequencing technologies with DeepSomatic.Nature biotechnology · 2026Article
- Tutorial for variant interrogation in tumor samples.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- GENOMICON-Seq enables realistic simulation of amplicon and exome sequencing for low-frequency mutation detection.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- PathoSeq-QC: a decision support bioinformatics workflow for robust genomic surveillance.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- SVEA: an accurate model for structural variation detection using multi-channel image encoding and enhanced AlexNet architecture.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
- Cancer genomics and bioinformatics in Latin American countries: applications, challenges, and perspectives.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- ONCOLINER: A new solution for monitoring, improving, and harmonizing somatic variant calling across genomic oncology centers.Cell genomics · 2024Article
- CSV-Filter: a deep learning-based comprehensive structural variant filtering method for both short and long reads.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- DeepSomatic: Accurate somatic small variant discovery for multiple sequencing technologies.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- TMBstable: a variant caller controls performance variation across heterogeneous sequencing samples.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Article
- ZygosityPredictor.Bioinformatics advances · 2024Article
- Target Finder of Transcription Factor (TFoTF): a novel tool to predict transcription factor-targeted genes in cancer.Molecular oncology · 2023Article
- RFcaller: a machine learning approach combined with read-level features to detect somatic mutations.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2023Article
- Concordance between whole exome sequencing of circulating tumor DNA and tumor tissue.PloS one · 2023Article
- From Samples to Germline and Somatic Sequence Variation: A Focus on Next-Generation Sequencing in Melanoma Research.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
motivationThe analysis of cancer genomes provides fundamental information about its etiology, the processes driving cell transformation or potential treatments. While researchers and clinicians are often only interested in the identification of oncogenic mutations, actionable variants or mutational signatures, the first crucial step in the analysis of any tumor genome is the identification of somatic variants in cancer cells (i.e. those that have been acquired during their evolution). For that purpose, a wide range of computational tools have been developed in recent years to detect somatic mutations in sequencing data from tumor samples. While there have been some efforts to benchmark somatic variant calling tools and strategies, the extent to which variant calling decisions impact the results of downstream analyses of tumor genomes remains unknown.
resultsHere, we quantify the impact of variant calling decisions by comparing the results obtained in three important analyses of cancer genomics data (identification of cancer driver genes, quantification of mutational signatures and detection of clinically actionable variants) when changing the somatic variant caller (MuSE, MuTect2, SomaticSniper and VarScan2) or the strategy to combine them (Consensus of two, Consensus of three and Union) across all 33 cancer types from The Cancer Genome Atlas. Our results show that variant calling decisions have a significant impact on these analyses, creating important differences that could even impact treatment decisions for some patients. Moreover, the Consensus of three calling strategy to combine the output of multiple variant calling tools, a very widely used strategy by the research community, can lead to the loss of some cancer driver genes and actionable mutations. Overall, our results highlight the limitations of widespread practices within the cancer genomics community and point to important differences in critical analyses of tumor sequencing data depending on variant calling, affecting even the identification of clinically actionable variants. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Code is available at https://github.com/carlosgarciaprieto/VariantCallingClinicalBenchmark. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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.