↓ Skip to main content

Unexpected effects of different genetic backgrounds on identification of genomic rearrangements via whole-genome next generation sequencing

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
twitter
27 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
Unexpected effects of different genetic backgrounds on identification of genomic rearrangements via whole-genome next generation sequencing
Published in
BMC Genomics, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12864-016-3153-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhangguo Chen, Katherine Gowan, Sonia M. Leach, Sawanee S. Viboolsittiseri, Ameet K. Mishra, Tanya Kadoishi, Katrina Diener, Bifeng Gao, Kenneth Jones, Jing H. Wang

Abstract

Whole genome next generation sequencing (NGS) is increasingly employed to detect genomic rearrangements in cancer genomes, especially in lymphoid malignancies. We recently established a unique mouse model by specifically deleting a key non-homologous end-joining DNA repair gene, Xrcc4, and a cell cycle checkpoint gene, Trp53, in germinal center B cells. This mouse model spontaneously develops mature B cell lymphomas (termed G1XP lymphomas). Here, we attempt to employ whole genome NGS to identify novel structural rearrangements, in particular inter-chromosomal translocations (CTXs), in these G1XP lymphomas. We sequenced six lymphoma samples, aligned our NGS data with mouse reference genome (in C57BL/6J (B6) background) and identified CTXs using CREST algorithm. Surprisingly, we detected widespread CTXs in both lymphomas and wildtype control samples, majority of which were false positive and attributable to different genetic backgrounds. In addition, we validated our NGS pipeline by sequencing multiple control samples from distinct tissues of different genetic backgrounds of mouse (B6 vs non-B6). Lastly, our studies showed that widespread false positive CTXs can be generated by simply aligning sequences from different genetic backgrounds of mouse. We conclude that mapping and alignment with reference genome might not be a preferred method for analyzing whole-genome NGS data obtained from a genetic background different from reference genome. Given the complex genetic background of different mouse strains or the heterogeneity of cancer genomes in human patients, in order to minimize such systematic artifacts and uncover novel CTXs, a preferred method might be de novo assembly of personalized normal control genome and cancer cell genome, instead of mapping and aligning NGS data to mouse or human reference genome. Thus, our studies have critical impact on the manner of data analysis for cancer genomics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 5%
Germany 1 5%
France 1 5%
Norway 1 5%
Unknown 16 80%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 30%
Student > Master 3 15%
Other 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Other 3 15%
Unknown 2 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 10%
Computer Science 1 5%
Engineering 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 60. 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 08 September 2017.
All research outputs
#698,085
of 25,257,066 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#72
of 11,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,411
of 324,285 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#4
of 226 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,257,066 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,206 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 324,285 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.