ArticlePloS one2025
Evaluation of potential of targeted sequencing through mutational signature simulation.
Article in PloS one, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTargeted sequencing is critical in cancer diagnosis, treatment selection, and monitoring. However, the effectiveness of these methods for reflecting whole-exome sequencing (WES)-level mutational signatures remains unclear. Therefore, we addressed this issue through simulation-based analysis to clarify how well targeted sequencing can reproduce WES-level mutational signatures.
methodsWe compared the correlation and similarity of mutational signatures between whole-exome sequencing-level mutation data and downsampled data for gene sets targeted by each sequencing method in 13 cancer types. Additionally, a similarity analysis of the mutational signatures was conducted using randomly downsampled data.
resultsThe comparison between whole-exome sequencing and targeted sequencing showed a low correlation based on Pearson's correlation coefficient but a high similarity based on the Dice similarity index. As a result of the downsampling of data with cancer-related genes and whole genes to evaluate similarity, the cancer-related gene random set showed high similarity when 200-400 genes were selected. However, the whole-genome random set required 2-3 times as many genes as the cancer-related gene random set to show high similarity. Among cancer types, colorectal and lung cancers demonstrated high similarity with fewer downsampled genes, whereas breast and prostate cancers required more downsampled genes to achieve high similarity.
conclusionThis study demonstrated that current clinically used targeted sequencing methods can reflect whole-exome sequencing-level mutational signatures. This suggests that considering the cancer type and average number of gene mutations in each patient when selecting targeted sequencing methods can lead to more effective treatment choices.
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.