↓ Skip to main content

A site specific model and analysis of the neutral somatic mutation rate in whole-genome cancer data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
A site specific model and analysis of the neutral somatic mutation rate in whole-genome cancer data
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12859-018-2141-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johanna Bertl, Qianyun Guo, Malene Juul, Søren Besenbacher, Morten Muhlig Nielsen, Henrik Hornshøj, Jakob Skou Pedersen, Asger Hobolth

Abstract

Detailed modelling of the neutral mutational process in cancer cells is crucial for identifying driver mutations and understanding the mutational mechanisms that act during cancer development. The neutral mutational process is very complex: whole-genome analyses have revealed that the mutation rate differs between cancer types, between patients and along the genome depending on the genetic and epigenetic context. Therefore, methods that predict the number of different types of mutations in regions or specific genomic elements must consider local genomic explanatory variables. A major drawback of most methods is the need to average the explanatory variables across the entire region or genomic element. This procedure is particularly problematic if the explanatory variable varies dramatically in the element under consideration. To take into account the fine scale of the explanatory variables, we model the probabilities of different types of mutations for each position in the genome by multinomial logistic regression. We analyse 505 cancer genomes from 14 different cancer types and compare the performance in predicting mutation rate for both regional based models and site-specific models. We show that for 1000 randomly selected genomic positions, the site-specific model predicts the mutation rate much better than regional based models. We use a forward selection procedure to identify the most important explanatory variables. The procedure identifies site-specific conservation (phyloP), replication timing, and expression level as the best predictors for the mutation rate. Finally, our model confirms and quantifies certain well-known mutational signatures. We find that our site-specific multinomial regression model outperforms the regional based models. The possibility of including genomic variables on different scales and patient specific variables makes it a versatile framework for studying different mutational mechanisms. Our model can serve as the neutral null model for the mutational process; regions that deviate from the null model are candidates for elements that drive cancer development.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 39%
Researcher 9 29%
Student > Bachelor 5 16%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 6%
Professor 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 10%
Computer Science 3 10%
Mathematics 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 3 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 01 April 2019.
All research outputs
#14,104,945
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#4,503
of 7,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,320
of 327,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#54
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,319 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 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 327,386 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.