2013
DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.2562
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Computational approaches to identify functional genetic variants in cancer genomes

Abstract: The International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) aims to catalog genomic abnormalities in tumors from 50 different cancer types. Genome sequencing reveals hundreds to thousands of somatic mutations in each tumor, but only a minority drive tumor progression. We present the result of discussions within the ICGC on how to address the challenge of identifying mutations that contribute to oncogenesis, tumor maintenance or response to therapy, and recommend computational techniques to annotate somatic variants and … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
99
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
3
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 148 publications
(100 citation statements)
references
References 66 publications
1
99
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Each of these methods makes predictions about whether a mutation is likely to affect protein function but does not attempt to predict whether the mutation induces gain or loss of function. To compare these approaches, we used the term “functional variant” to denote both gain-of-function and loss-of-function alleles (50) and “neutral variant” for all other alleles. The concordance rates between each of these methods and our approach ranged from 66% to 77% (Methods; Supplementary Table S6; Supplementary Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Each of these methods makes predictions about whether a mutation is likely to affect protein function but does not attempt to predict whether the mutation induces gain or loss of function. To compare these approaches, we used the term “functional variant” to denote both gain-of-function and loss-of-function alleles (50) and “neutral variant” for all other alleles. The concordance rates between each of these methods and our approach ranged from 66% to 77% (Methods; Supplementary Table S6; Supplementary Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…20,40,41 At our median sequencing depth (265-fold), the estimated sensitivity for detecting somatic mutations with an atrial somatic fraction of 10% is 99.999%. When the atrial somatic fraction drops to 5%, 2%, and 1%, our sensitivity for detection correspondingly falls to 99.2%, 76.8%, and 26.9%, respectively.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…The mechanisms by which the driver variants may affect protein stability, interactions, and function remain largely unknown. Various computational methods have been developed to estimate the impacts of disease mutations on proteins but most of them exclusively use sequence features and do not explicitly utilize the protein three-dimensional structures, their physico-chemical properties and dynamics (2, 3). Many cancers are characterized by (de)activation of certain proteins which may be a result of missense mutations (4).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%