↓ Skip to main content

Pan-cancer analysis reveals technical artifacts in TCGA germline variant calls

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 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
Pan-cancer analysis reveals technical artifacts in TCGA germline variant calls
Published in
BMC Genomics, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12864-017-3770-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexandra R. Buckley, Kristopher A. Standish, Kunal Bhutani, Trey Ideker, Roger S. Lasken, Hannah Carter, Olivier Harismendy, Nicholas J. Schork

Abstract

Cancer research to date has largely focused on somatically acquired genetic aberrations. In contrast, the degree to which germline, or inherited, variation contributes to tumorigenesis remains unclear, possibly due to a lack of accessible germline variant data. Here we called germline variants on 9618 cases from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database representing 31 cancer types. We identified batch effects affecting loss of function (LOF) variant calls that can be traced back to differences in the way the sequence data were generated both within and across cancer types. Overall, LOF indel calls were more sensitive to technical artifacts than LOF Single Nucleotide Variant (SNV) calls. In particular, whole genome amplification of DNA prior to sequencing led to an artificially increased burden of LOF indel calls, which confounded association analyses relating germline variants to tumor type despite stringent indel filtering strategies. The samples affected by these technical artifacts include all acute myeloid leukemia and practically all ovarian cancer samples. We demonstrate how technical artifacts induced by whole genome amplification of DNA can lead to false positive germline-tumor type associations and suggest TCGA whole genome amplified samples be used with caution. This study draws attention to the need to be sensitive to problems associated with a lack of uniformity in data generation in TCGA data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 112 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 25%
Researcher 21 19%
Student > Master 15 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 5 4%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 21 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 36 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 27 24%
Computer Science 8 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 6%
Mathematics 3 3%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 24 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 28 June 2017.
All research outputs
#3,148,878
of 24,690,130 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#1,078
of 11,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,881
of 322,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#33
of 213 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,690,130 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,046 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 322,270 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 213 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.