ArticleCancer medicine2023
Restriction site associated DNA sequencing for tumour mutation burden estimation and mutation signature analysis.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of immunocompetent models for primary and metastatic ER+ breast cancer.Animal models and experimental medicine · 2026Article
- Restriction site associated DNA sequencing for tumour mutation burden estimation and mutation signature analysis.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGenome-wide measures of genetic disruption such as tumour mutation burden (TMB) and mutation signatures are emerging as useful biomarkers to stratify patients for treatment. Clinicians commonly use cancer gene panels for tumour mutation burden estimation, and whole genome sequencing is the gold standard for mutation signature analysis. However, the accuracy and cost associated with these assays limits their utility at scale.
methodsWGS data from 560 breast cancer patients was used for in silico library simulations to evaluate the accuracy of an FDA approved cancer gene panel as well as restriction enzyme associated DNA sequencing (RADseq) libraries for TMB estimation and mutation signature analysis. We also transfected a mouse mammary cell line with APOBEC enzymes and sequenced resulting clones to evaluate the efficacy of RADseq in an experimental setting.
resultsRADseq had improved accuracy of TMB estimation and derivation of mutation profiles when compared to the FDA approved cancer panel. Using simulated immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) trials, we show that inaccurate TMB estimation leads to a reduction in power for deriving an optimal TMB cutoff to stratify patients for immune checkpoint blockade treatment. Additionally, prioritisation of APOBEC hypermutated tumours in these trials optimises TMB cutoff determination for breast cancer. The utility of RADseq in an experimental setting was also demonstrated, based on characterisation of an APOBEC mutation signature in an APOBEC3A transfected mouse cell line.
conclusionIn conclusion, our work demonstrates that RADseq has the potential to be used as a cost-effective, accurate solution for TMB estimation and mutation signature analysis by both clinicians and basic researchers.
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.