↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating somatic tumor mutation detection without matched normal samples

Overview of attention for article published in Human Genomics, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 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
Evaluating somatic tumor mutation detection without matched normal samples
Published in
Human Genomics, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40246-017-0118-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jamie K. Teer, Yonghong Zhang, Lu Chen, Eric A. Welsh, W. Douglas Cress, Steven A. Eschrich, Anders E. Berglund

Abstract

Observations of recurrent somatic mutations in tumors have led to identification and definition of signaling and other pathways that are important for cancer progression and therapeutic targeting. As tumor cells contain both an individual's inherited genetic variants and somatic mutations, challenges arise in distinguishing these events in massively parallel sequencing datasets. Typically, both a tumor sample and a "normal" sample from the same individual are sequenced and compared; variants observed only in the tumor are considered to be somatic mutations. However, this approach requires two samples for each individual. We evaluate a method of detecting somatic mutations in tumor samples for which only a subset of normal samples are available. We describe tuning of the method for detection of mutations in tumors, filtering to remove inherited variants, and comparison of detected mutations to several matched tumor/normal analysis methods. Filtering steps include the use of population variation datasets to remove inherited variants as well a subset of normal samples to remove technical artifacts. We then directly compare mutation detection with tumor-only and tumor-normal approaches using the same sets of samples. Comparisons are performed using an internal targeted gene sequencing dataset (n = 3380) as well as whole exome sequencing data from The Cancer Genome Atlas project (n = 250). Tumor-only mutation detection shows similar recall (43-60%) but lesser precision (20-21%) to current matched tumor/normal approaches (recall 43-73%, precision 30-82%) when compared to a "gold-standard" tumor/normal approach. The inclusion of a small pool of normal samples improves precision, although many variants are still uniquely detected in the tumor-only analysis. A detailed method for somatic mutation detection without matched normal samples enables study of larger numbers of tumor samples, as well as tumor samples for which a matched normal is not available. As sensitivity/recall is similar to tumor/normal mutation detection but precision is lower, tumor-only detection is more appropriate for classification of samples based on known mutations. Although matched tumor-normal analysis is preferred due to higher precision, we demonstrate that mutation detection without matched normal samples is possible for certain applications.

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 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 123 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 14%
Student > Master 12 10%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Other 9 7%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 29 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 39 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 9%
Computer Science 10 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 32 26%
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 20 February 2020.
All research outputs
#14,814,518
of 25,807,758 outputs
Outputs from Human Genomics
#280
of 574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,625
of 324,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Genomics
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,807,758 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 574 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 324,833 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 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.