2019
DOI: 10.1038/s41588-019-0390-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Detecting the mutational signature of homologous recombination deficiency in clinical samples

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

10
215
2
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 243 publications
(228 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
10
215
2
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Furthermore, none of the tumors were polymerase epsilon (POLE)-mutated or mismatch repair deficient (MMRD); both are DNA repair defects known to associate with excellent response to immune checkpoint blockade 9,10 . Using a recently developed computational tool called SigMA (Signature Multivariate Analysis), which is capable of determining mutational signatures even when tumor mutational burden is low 11 we were able to test for the presence of a specific mutational signature, which has been shown to be associated with HRD, called signature 3 12 . Using SigMA on the OncoPanel sequencing data, we identified the presence of signature 3 in 51% (20/39) of the patients, thereafter denoted as Sig3 positive.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Furthermore, none of the tumors were polymerase epsilon (POLE)-mutated or mismatch repair deficient (MMRD); both are DNA repair defects known to associate with excellent response to immune checkpoint blockade 9,10 . Using a recently developed computational tool called SigMA (Signature Multivariate Analysis), which is capable of determining mutational signatures even when tumor mutational burden is low 11 we were able to test for the presence of a specific mutational signature, which has been shown to be associated with HRD, called signature 3 12 . Using SigMA on the OncoPanel sequencing data, we identified the presence of signature 3 in 51% (20/39) of the patients, thereafter denoted as Sig3 positive.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All remaining mutations were used for the mutational signature calls with SigMA, including mutations that do not have a consequence such as synonymous and intronic mutations. Mutational signatures were called using SigMA 11 . For this study, SigMA was optimized for OncoPanel using simulations generated specifically for its library using whole genome sequenced ovarian cancer datasets 11 .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous methods to identify these tumors focused on the HR defects that result from a BRCA1/2 mutation and a high HR deficiency score (HRD-score). For both a significantly better response to platinum-based chemotherapy was observed [20][21][22][23][24]. In addition to genetic analysis, it is also possible to characterize HR-deficient tumors functionally.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…CHORD-signature achieved similarly to CHORD (Supplementary figure 8), which can be explained by the reliance on similar features (Supplementary figure 7), namely microhomology deletions and SV signature 3 (SV3; analogous to 1-100kb duplications). COSMIC signature 3 (proposed as a sensitive marker for HRD in recent studies [16][17][18] ) is actually a less important feature for predicting HRD than microhomology deletions in both models, indicating that microhomology deletions serves as a better (univariate) marker of HRD compared to COSMIC signature 3, which may hamper HRD detection in tumors with already prominent endogenous signature 3 contribution. We conclude that accurate detection of HRD does not require mutational signatures, thereby simplifying HRD calling and avoiding the complications associated with the fitting step required for computing signature contributions in individual samples (for which there is currently no consensus approach) 19 .…”
Section: Performance Of Chordmentioning
confidence: 93%