Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38783705›Full record

ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2024

Mutational signatures of colorectal cancers according to distinct computational workflows.

Paolo Battuello, Giorgio Corti, Alice Bartolini, Annalisa Lorenzato, Alberto Sogari, Mariangela Russo, Federica Di Nicolantonio, Alberto Bardelli, Giovanni Crisafulli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

9 authors.

Paolo BattuelloDepartment of Oncology, Molecular Biotechnology Center, University of Turin, Piazza Nizza 44, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Giorgio CortiDepartment of Oncology, Molecular Biotechnology Center, University of Turin, Piazza Nizza 44, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Alice BartoliniCandiolo Cancer Institute, FPO - IRCCS, Strada Provinciale 142 - km 3.95, 10060, Candiolo, Turin, Italy.
Annalisa LorenzatoDepartment of Oncology, Molecular Biotechnology Center, University of Turin, Piazza Nizza 44, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Alberto SogariDepartment of Oncology, Molecular Biotechnology Center, University of Turin, Piazza Nizza 44, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Mariangela RussoDepartment of Oncology, Molecular Biotechnology Center, University of Turin, Piazza Nizza 44, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Federica Di NicolantonioDepartment of Oncology, Molecular Biotechnology Center, University of Turin, Piazza Nizza 44, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Alberto BardelliDepartment of Oncology, Molecular Biotechnology Center, University of Turin, Piazza Nizza 44, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Giovanni CrisafulliGenomics of Cancer and Targeted Therapies Unit, IFOM ETS, The AIRC Institute of Molecular Oncology, Via Adamello 16, 20139, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5511-1555

Funding

AIRC 22795Cancer Research UK A26825European Research Council 101020342FC AECC GEACC18004TABInternational Accelerator Award
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tumor mutational signatures have gained prominence in cancer research, yet the lack of standardized methods hinders reproducibility and robustness. Leveraging colorectal cancer (CRC) as a model, we explored the influence of computational parameters on mutational signature analyses across 230 CRC cell lines and 152 CRC patients. Results were validated in three independent datasets: 483 endometrial cancer patients stratified by mismatch repair (MMR) status, 35 lung cancer patients by smoking status and 12 patient-derived organoids (PDOs) annotated for colibactin exposure. Assessing various bioinformatic tools, reference datasets and input data sizes including whole genome sequencing, whole exome sequencing and a pan-cancer gene panel, we demonstrated significant variability in the results. We report that the use of distinct algorithms and references led to statistically different results, highlighting how arbitrary choices may induce variability in the mutational signature contributions. Furthermore, we found a differential contribution of mutational signatures between coding and intergenic regions and defined the minimum number of somatic variants required for reliable mutational signature assignment. To facilitate the identification of the most suitable workflows, we developed Comparative Mutational Signature analysis on Coding and Extragenic Regions (CoMSCER), a bioinformatic tool which allows researchers to easily perform comparative mutational signature analysis by coupling the results from several tools and public reference datasets and to assess mutational signature contributions in coding and non-coding genomic regions. In conclusion, our study provides a comparative framework to elucidate the impact of distinct computational workflows on mutational signatures.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsComputational BiologyMutationAlgorithmsCell Line, TumorExome SequencingFemaleHumansWorkflowbenchmarkingbioinformaticscolorectal cancercomputational biologygenomicsmutational signaturesprecision oncology

Identifiers

PMID38783705
PMCPMC11116831

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.