↓ Skip to main content

Performance comparison of two commercial human whole-exome capture systems on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded lung adenocarcinoma samples

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Performance comparison of two commercial human whole-exome capture systems on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded lung adenocarcinoma samples
Published in
BMC Cancer, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12885-016-2720-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Silvia Bonfiglio, Irene Vanni, Valeria Rossella, Anna Truini, Dejan Lazarevic, Maria Giovanna Dal Bello, Angela Alama, Marco Mora, Erika Rijavec, Carlo Genova, Davide Cittaro, Francesco Grossi, Simona Coco

Abstract

Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) has become a valuable tool for molecular landscape characterization of cancer genomes, leading to a better understanding of tumor onset and progression, and opening new avenues in translational oncology. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue is the method of choice for storage of clinical samples, however low quality of FFPE genomic DNA (gDNA) can limit its use for downstream applications. To investigate the FFPE specimen suitability for NGS analysis and to establish the performance of two solution-based exome capture technologies, we compared the whole-exome sequencing (WES) data of gDNA extracted from 5 fresh frozen (FF) and 5 matched FFPE lung adenocarcinoma tissues using: SeqCap EZ Human Exome v.3.0 (Roche NimbleGen) and SureSelect XT Human All Exon v.5 (Agilent Technologies). Sequencing metrics on Illumina HiSeq were optimal for both exome systems and comparable among FFPE and FF samples, with a slight increase of PCR duplicates in FFPE, mainly in Roche NimbleGen libraries. Comparison of single nucleotide variants (SNVs) between FFPE-FF pairs reached overlapping values >90 % in both systems. Both WES showed high concordance with target re-sequencing data by Ion PGM™ in 22 lung-cancer genes, regardless the source of samples. Exon coverage of 623 cancer-related genes revealed high coverage efficiency of both kits, proposing WES as a valid alternative to target re-sequencing. High-quality and reliable data can be successfully obtained from WES of FFPE samples starting from a relatively low amount of input gDNA, suggesting the inclusion of NGS-based tests into clinical contest. In conclusion, our analysis suggests that the WES approach could be extended to a translational research context as well as to the clinic (e.g. to study rare malignancies), where the simultaneous analysis of the whole coding region of the genome may help in the detection of cancer-linked variants.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 16%
Other 9 12%
Student > Master 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 13 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 11%
Computer Science 3 4%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 16 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 November 2017.
All research outputs
#12,669,792
of 22,884,315 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#2,620
of 8,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,023
of 336,882 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#52
of 226 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,884,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,326 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,882 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 226 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.