Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41165721›Full record

ArticleGigaScience2025

The effects of bioinformatics preprocessing on cell-free DNA fragment analysis.

Ivna Ivanković, Zsolt Balázs, Todor Gitchev, Cécile Trottet, Norbert Moldovan, Idris Bahce, Florent Mouliere, Michael Krauthammer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. 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 · 2026
    Review
  2. Circulating Tumor DNA as a Biomarker for Melanoma Prognosis and Therapy.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2026
    Review
  3. 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

8 authors.

Ivna IvankovićDepartment of Quantitative Biomedicine, University of Zurich, Zurich 8057, Switzerland.ORCID 0009-0006-7240-3214
Zsolt BalázsDepartment of Quantitative Biomedicine, University of Zurich, Zurich 8057, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-3537-7441
Todor GitchevDepartment of Quantitative Biomedicine, University of Zurich, Zurich 8057, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-7470-0646
Cécile TrottetDepartment of Quantitative Biomedicine, University of Zurich, Zurich 8057, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-1746-1343
Norbert MoldovanDepartment of Pathology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1007 MB, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4138-586X
Idris BahceDepartment of Pulmonology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1111-608X
Florent MouliereDepartment of Pathology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1007 MB, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7043-0514
Michael KrauthammerDepartment of Quantitative Biomedicine, University of Zurich, Zurich 8057, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-4808-1845

Funding

CRUK CTRNBC-2022/100001Manchester Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre ECMCQQR-2022/100014NIHR NIHR203308University of Zurich FK-20-103University of Zurich FK-22-089University of Zurich KWF-12822
6 · The paper itself

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

Cell-Free Nucleic AcidsComputational BiologyLung NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansSequence Analysis, DNAWhole Genome SequencingBiomarkers, TumorCell-Free Nucleic Acidsbenchmarkingbioinformatics workflowcell-free DNAfragmentomics

Identifiers

PMID41165721
PMCPMC12720587

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.