ArticleNPJ precision oncology2025
Benchmarking mouse contamination removing protocols in patient-derived xenografts genomic profiling.
Article in NPJ precision oncology, 2025. 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models are widely used in cancer research. Genomic and transcriptomic profiling of PDXs are inevitably contaminated by sequencing reads originated from mouse cells. Here, we examine the impact of mouse read contamination on RNA sequencing (RNAseq), Whole Exome Sequencing (WES), and Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) data of 21 PDXs. We also systematically benchmark the performance of 12 computational protocols for removing mouse reads from PDXs. We find that mouse read contamination increases expression of immune and stromal related genes, and inflates the number of somatic mutations. However, detection of gene fusions and copy number alterations is minimally affected by mouse read contamination. Using gold standard datasets, we find that pseudo-alignment protocols often demonstrate better prediction performance and computing efficiency. The best performing tool is a relatively new tool Xengsort. Our results emphasize the importance of removing mouse reads from PDXs and the need to adopt new tools in PDX genomic studies.
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.