Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40132544›Full record

ArticleCell reports methods2025

Comprehensive assessment of computational methods for cancer immunoediting.

Shengyuan He, Shangqin Sun, Kun Liu, Bo Pang, Yun Xiao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cell reports methods, 2025. 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. 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

5 authors.

Shengyuan HeCollege of Bioinformatics Science and Technology, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, Heilongjiang 150081, China.
Shangqin SunCollege of Bioinformatics Science and Technology, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, Heilongjiang 150081, China.
Kun LiuCollege of Bioinformatics Science and Technology, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, Heilongjiang 150081, China.
Bo PangCollege of Bioinformatics Science and Technology, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, Heilongjiang 150081, China. Electronic address: pangbo@ems.hrbmu.edu.cn.
Yun XiaoCollege of Bioinformatics Science and Technology, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, Heilongjiang 150081, China. Electronic address: xiaoyun@ems.hrbmu.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cancer immunoediting reflects the role of the immune system in eliminating tumor cells and shaping tumor immunogenicity, which leaves marks in the genome. In this study, we systematically evaluate four methods for quantifying immunoediting. In colorectal cancer samples from The Cancer Genome Atlas, we found that these methods identified 78.41%, 46.17%, 36.61%, and 4.92% of immunoedited samples, respectively, covering 92.90% of all colorectal cancer samples. Comparison of 10 patient-derived xenografts (PDXs) with their original tumors showed that different methods identified reduced immune selection in PDXs ranging from 44.44% to 60.0%. The proportion of such PDX-tumor pairs increases to 77.78% when considering the union of results from multiple methods, indicating the complementarity of these methods. We find that observed-to-expected ratios highly rely on neoantigen selection criteria and reference datasets. In contrast, HLA-binding mutation ratio, immune dN/dS, and enrichment score of cancer cell fraction were less affected by these factors. Our findings suggest integration of multiple methods may benefit future immunoediting analyses.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsComputational BiologyNeoplasmsAnimalsAntigens, NeoplasmHumansMiceMutationAntigens, Neoplasmcomputational methodsCP: cancer biologyCP: geneticsimmune selectionimmunoediting

Identifiers

PMID40132544
PMCPMC12049729

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.