ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Fast and accurate resolution of ecDNA sequence using Cycle-Extractor.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Extrachromosomal DNA (ecDNA) plays a key role in cancer pathology. EcDNAs mediate high oncogene amplification and expression and worse patient outcomes. Accurately determining the structure of these circular molecules is essential for understanding their function, yet reconstructing ecDNA cycles from sequencing data remains challenging. We introduce Cycle-Extractor (CE) for reconstruction. CE accepts a breakpoint graph derived from either short or long read sequencing data as input and extracts a cycle with the maximum length-weighted-copy-number. CE utilizes a mixed-integer linear program (MILP) and a separate traversal procedure, enabling fast optimization and compatibility with free solvers. We evaluated CE against CoRAL (long-read-based quadratic optimization), Decoil (long-reads), and AmpliconArchitect (AA for short reads) on both simulated data and real cancer cell lines. On simulated ecDNA, CE achieves performance comparable to CoRAL across three accuracy metrics and consistently outperforms AA and Decoil. On cancer cell lines, CE produces longer and heavier cycles than AA, and achieves performance similar to CoRAL. Moreover, CE is, on average, 40× faster than CoRAL. These results demonstrate that CE accurately reconstructs ecDNA from both short- and long-read sequencing data, while long-read inputs allow CE to recover more complete and higher-confidence ecDNA structures. CE improved the prediction of many ecDNA structures. On a PC3 ecDNA containing
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.