↓ Skip to main content

Identifying restrictions in the order of accumulation of mutations during tumor progression: effects of passengers, evolutionary models, and sampling

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Identifying restrictions in the order of accumulation of mutations during tumor progression: effects of passengers, evolutionary models, and sampling
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12859-015-0466-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ramon Diaz-Uriarte

Abstract

Cancer progression is caused by the sequential accumulation of mutations, but not all orders of accumulation are equally likely. When the fixation of some mutations depends on the presence of previous ones, identifying restrictions in the order of accumulation of mutations can lead to the discovery of therapeutic targets and diagnostic markers. The purpose of this study is to conduct a comprehensive comparison of the performance of all available methods to identify these restrictions from cross-sectional data. I used simulated data sets (where the true restrictions are known) but, in contrast to previous work, I embedded restrictions within evolutionary models of tumor progression that included passengers (mutations not responsible for the development of cancer, known to be very common). This allowed me to assess, for the first time, the effects of having to filter out passengers, of sampling schemes (when, how, and how many samples), and of deviations from order restrictions. Poor choices of method, filtering, and sampling lead to large errors in all performance measures. Having to filter passengers lead to decreased performance, especially because true restrictions were missed. Overall, the best method for identifying order restrictions were Oncogenetic Trees, a fast and easy to use method that, although unable to recover dependencies of mutations on more than one mutation, showed good performance in most scenarios, superior to Conjunctive Bayesian Networks and Progression Networks. Single cell sampling provided no advantage, but sampling in the final stages of the disease vs. sampling at different stages had severe effects. Evolutionary model and deviations from order restrictions had major, and sometimes counterintuitive, interactions with other factors that affected performance. This paper provides practical recommendations for using these methods with experimental data. It also identifies key areas of future methodological work and, in particular, it shows that it is both possible and necessary to embed assumptions about order restrictions and the nature of driver status within evolutionary models of cancer progression to evaluate the performance of inferential approaches.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 9%
Spain 1 3%
Norway 1 3%
Unknown 30 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 29%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 14%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Master 2 6%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 6 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 23%
Computer Science 7 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 6 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 12 February 2015.
All research outputs
#15,322,159
of 22,789,076 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,371
of 7,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,363
of 357,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#101
of 144 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,789,076 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,279 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 357,813 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 144 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.