Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40736904›Full record

ArticleMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2025

The Cancer Genome in the Long Reads Era.

Luca Ermini

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Luca ErminiSchool of Biosciences and Veterinary Medicine, University of Camerino, Camerino, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cancer genomics, driven by advancements in sequencing technologies, is rapidly transforming our understanding of tumor biology. The advent of high-throughput short-read sequencing technologies has enabled a paradigm shift in cancer genomics, providing unprecedented resolution of mutations that drive tumorigenesis. Initially, short-read sequencing dominated the field, revealing the repertoire of mutational signatures and the complexities of tumor heterogeneity. However, the inherent limitations of short-read sequencing, particularly in resolving complex structural variations and repetitive regions, underscored the need for alternative approaches. This chapter delves into the transformative potential of long-read sequencing in overcoming these limitations, ushering in a new era for cancer genomics. By spanning larger genomic regions, long-reads offer a more comprehensive view of structural variations, phasing information, and complex rearrangements, crucial for deciphering the evolutionary trajectories of cancer. Furthermore, the chapter examines the dynamics of somatic evolution, comparing Darwinian and non-Darwinian frameworks, and discusses how these models inform our understanding of cancer progression which have implications for cancer therapies. Finally, a bioinformatics workflow, leveraging long-read sequencing data, is outlined to enable the identification of cancer-associated mutations. Integrating cutting-edge sequencing technologies with advanced computational approaches is essential for accelerating oncological research and improving cancer therapies. Long-read sequencing is poised to unveil the complex genomic architecture of cancers, potentially leading to more precise and effective treatments.

Indexed as

Genome, HumanGenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingNeoplasmsComputational BiologyEvolution, MolecularHumansMutationSequence Analysis, DNABioinformaticsCancer evolutionCancer genomeGenomicsNext and third generation sequencing

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.