2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.gpb.2018.10.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

C3 : Consensus Cancer Driver Gene Caller

Abstract: Next-generation sequencing has allowed identification of millions of somatic mutations in human cancer cells. A key challenge in interpreting cancer genomes is to distinguish drivers of cancer development among available genetic mutations. To address this issue, we present the first web-based application, consensus cancer driver gene caller (C3), to identify the consensus driver genes using six different complementary strategies, i.e., frequency-based, machine learning-based, functional bias-based, clustering-… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Since the CMAP method only predicts a single drug response from L1000CDS [41], drug combinations are ranked by the average rank of two drugs in CMAP predictions. We evaluated the relative ranking of drug combination responses from comboSC, CMAP, and comboSC-bulk by Discounted Cumulative Gain (DCG) [63,64]. The DCG score is calculated as follows:…”
Section: Drug Combination Response Evaluation In Head and Neck Patien...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since the CMAP method only predicts a single drug response from L1000CDS [41], drug combinations are ranked by the average rank of two drugs in CMAP predictions. We evaluated the relative ranking of drug combination responses from comboSC, CMAP, and comboSC-bulk by Discounted Cumulative Gain (DCG) [63,64]. The DCG score is calculated as follows:…”
Section: Drug Combination Response Evaluation In Head and Neck Patien...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More and more databases, such as DriverDBv3 ( 36 ) and IntOGen ( 37 ), are incorporating published prediction approaches to identify driver genes from large-scale cancer projects. Using combinational strategies, consensus-based methods like CTAT ( 30 ), ConsensusDriver ( 38 ), IntOGen ( 37 ) and C3 ( 39 ) promise to harness the strengths of different driver prediction methods and provide the best trade-off between sensitivity and specificity. However, there is no available integrated database for convenient search of annotations of driver genes from TCGA and ICGC cancer genomics projects by incorporating cancer driver predictions and prior oncology knowledge.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several studies of computational methods and their algorithms for the identification of significantly mutated genes in cancer have been conducted in recent years MA, 2013;RAPHAEL et al, 2014;ZHAO, 2015;DIMITRAKOPOULOS;BEEREN-WINKEL, 2017;SIMAO, 2020a), and various methods have been proposed (MILLER et al, 2011;RAPHAEL, 2011;CIRIELLO et al, 2012;RAPHAEL, 2012;DEES et al, 2012;BASHASHATI et al, 2012;HODIS et al, 2012;LAWRENCE et al, 2013;LEISERSON et al, 2013;MA, 2014;KIM et al, 2015;RAPHAEL, 2016;CHO et al, 2016;HOU et al, 2016;HRISTOV;SINGH, 2017;HORN et al, 2018;RAPHAEL, 2018;WU et al, 2019;ZHU et al, 2019;SIMAO, 2020b;YANG et al, 2021). Each method displays different characteristics, from computational and biological perspectives.…”
Section: Introduction 11 Contextualizationmentioning
confidence: 99%