↓ Skip to main content

Whole exome sequencing (WES) on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor tissue in gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 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
Whole exome sequencing (WES) on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor tissue in gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST)
Published in
BMC Genomics, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12864-015-1982-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annalisa Astolfi, Milena Urbini, Valentina Indio, Margherita Nannini, Chiara Giusy Genovese, Donatella Santini, Maristella Saponara, Anna Mandrioli, Giorgio Ercolani, Giovanni Brandi, Guido Biasco, Maria A. Pantaleo

Abstract

Next generation sequencing (NGS) technology has been rapidly introduced into basic and translational research in oncology, but the reduced availability of fresh frozen (FF) tumor tissues and the poor quality of DNA extracted from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) has significantly impaired this process in the field of solid tumors. To evaluate if data generated from FFPE material can be reliably produced and potentially used in routine clinical settings, we performed whole exome sequencing (WES) from tumor samples of Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST), either extracted FF or FFPE, and from matched normal DNA. We performed whole exome enrichment and sequencing at 100bp in paired end on four GIST samples, either from FFPE or fresh-frozen tissue, and from matched normal DNA. The integrity of DNA extracted from FFPE was evaluated by a modified RAPD PCR method, thus identifying high quality (HQ) and low quality (LQ) FFPE. DNA library production and exome capture was feasible for both classes of FFPE, despite the smaller yield and insert size of LQ-FFPE. WES produced data of equal quality from FF and FFPE, while only HQ-FFPE yielded an amount of data comparable to FF samples. Bioinformatic analysis showed that the percentage of variants called both in FF and FFPE samples was very high in HQ-FFPE, reaching 94-96 % of the total number of called variants. Classification of somatic variants by nucleotide substitution type showed that HQ-FFPE and FF had similar mutational profiles, while LQ-FFPE samples carried a much higher number of mutations than the FF counterpart, with a significant enrichment of C > T/G > A substitutions. Focusing on potential disease-related variants allowed the discovery of additional somatic variants in GIST samples, apart from the known oncogenic driver mutation, both from sequencing of FF and FFPE material. False positive and false negative calls were present almost exclusively in the analysis of FFPE of low quality. On the whole this study showed that WES is feasible also on FFPE specimens and that it is possible to easily select FFPE samples of high quality that yield sequencing results comparable to the FF counterpart. WES on FFPE material may represent an important and innovative source for GIST research and for other solid tumors, amenable of possible application in clinical practice.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 104 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 23%
Researcher 24 23%
Other 13 12%
Student > Master 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Other 18 17%
Unknown 11 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 25 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 7%
Computer Science 5 5%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 15 14%
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 10 November 2015.
All research outputs
#15,349,796
of 22,832,057 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#6,694
of 10,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,945
of 285,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#287
of 384 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,832,057 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 10,655 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 285,121 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 384 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.