↓ Skip to main content

An evaluation of copy number variation detection tools for cancer using whole exome sequencing data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
134 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
434 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
An evaluation of copy number variation detection tools for cancer using whole exome sequencing data
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12859-017-1705-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fatima Zare, Michelle Dow, Nicholas Monteleone, Abdelrahman Hosny, Sheida Nabavi

Abstract

Recently copy number variation (CNV) has gained considerable interest as a type of genomic/genetic variation that plays an important role in disease susceptibility. Advances in sequencing technology have created an opportunity for detecting CNVs more accurately. Recently whole exome sequencing (WES) has become primary strategy for sequencing patient samples and study their genomics aberrations. However, compared to whole genome sequencing, WES introduces more biases and noise that make CNV detection very challenging. Additionally, tumors' complexity makes the detection of cancer specific CNVs even more difficult. Although many CNV detection tools have been developed since introducing NGS data, there are few tools for somatic CNV detection for WES data in cancer. In this study, we evaluated the performance of the most recent and commonly used CNV detection tools for WES data in cancer to address their limitations and provide guidelines for developing new ones. We focused on the tools that have been designed or have the ability to detect cancer somatic aberrations. We compared the performance of the tools in terms of sensitivity and false discovery rate (FDR) using real data and simulated data. Comparative analysis of the results of the tools showed that there is a low consensus among the tools in calling CNVs. Using real data, tools show moderate sensitivity (~50% - ~80%), fair specificity (~70% - ~94%) and poor FDRs (~27% - ~60%). Also, using simulated data we observed that increasing the coverage more than 10× in exonic regions does not improve the detection power of the tools significantly. The limited performance of the current CNV detection tools for WES data in cancer indicates the need for developing more efficient and precise CNV detection methods. Due to the complexity of tumors and high level of noise and biases in WES data, employing advanced novel segmentation, normalization and de-noising techniques that are designed specifically for cancer data is necessary. Also, CNV detection development suffers from the lack of a gold standard for performance evaluation. Finally, developing tools with user-friendly user interfaces and visualization features can enhance CNV studies for a broader range of users.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 434 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 431 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 76 18%
Researcher 67 15%
Student > Master 65 15%
Student > Bachelor 42 10%
Other 24 6%
Other 58 13%
Unknown 102 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 144 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 83 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 31 7%
Computer Science 26 6%
Engineering 11 3%
Other 26 6%
Unknown 113 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 23 April 2019.
All research outputs
#6,797,766
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#2,573
of 7,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,597
of 316,427 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#35
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 316,427 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.