ArticleGigaScience2025
The effects of bioinformatics preprocessing on cell-free DNA fragment analysis.
Article in GigaScience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applications of circulating tumor DNA in unresectable and advanced non-small cell lung cancer immunotherapy: from stratification to therapeutic guidance.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Review
- Circulating Tumor DNA as a Biomarker for Melanoma Prognosis and Therapy.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2026Review
- Advancing the applications of liquid biopsies in oncology.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is a promising biomarker for cancer diagnosis and monitoring, there is limited agreement on optimal cfDNA collection and extraction protocols as well as analysis pipelines of the corresponding cfDNA sequencing data. In this article, we address the latter by studying the effect of various bioinformatics preprocessing choices on derived genetic and epigenetic cfDNA features and study how observed feature differences influence the downstream task of separating between healthy and cancer cfDNA samples.
resultsUsing low-pass whole-genome cfDNA sequencing data from 20 lung cancer and 20 healthy samples, we assessed the influence of various preprocessing settings, such as read trimming, filtering of secondary alignments, and choice of genome build, as well as practices such as downsampling or selecting for a short fragment on derived cfDNA features, including cfDNA fragment size, fragment end motifs, copy number alterations, and nucleosome footprints. Our results demonstrate that the analyzed features are robust to common preprocessing choices but exhibit variable sensitivity to sequencing coverage. Fragment length statistics and end motifs are the least affected by low coverages, whereas nucleosome footprint analysis is very sensitive to them. Our findings confirm that selecting for shorter fragments enhances cancer-specific signals but, by removing data, also reduces signals in general. Interestingly, we find that fragment end motif analysis benefits the most from in silico size selection. We also observe that the filtering of low-quality and secondary alignments and choice of genome build result in slight improvements in cancer classification performance based on nucleosome coverage and copy number features.
conclusionsAltogether, we conclude that cfDNA analysis is minimally affected by different bioinformatics preprocessing settings, but we describe some synergistic effects between analytical approaches, which can be leveraged to improve cancer detection.
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.