2016
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw536
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

SiNVICT: ultra-sensitive detection of single nucleotide variants and indels in circulating tumour DNA

Abstract: cenk@sfu.ca.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
48
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 54 publications
(48 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
48
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Thus, it is a cost-effective strategy for screening large cohorts of patients and it is particularly suited for point-of-care clinical applications [1], for example in conjunction with the Ion AmpliSeq Cancer Hotspot Panel. Given its translational potential, there is a real need to improve the variant calling workflow and recently a number of methods have been developed to deal specifically with Ion Torrent data [12,13,14].…”
Section: Conclusion Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Thus, it is a cost-effective strategy for screening large cohorts of patients and it is particularly suited for point-of-care clinical applications [1], for example in conjunction with the Ion AmpliSeq Cancer Hotspot Panel. Given its translational potential, there is a real need to improve the variant calling workflow and recently a number of methods have been developed to deal specifically with Ion Torrent data [12,13,14].…”
Section: Conclusion Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On WGS and ctDNA sample, we compare AmpliSolve to SiNVICT [12], a tool that has been shown to be effective in detecting mutations at very low VAF in Ion Torrent data. We run…”
Section: Snv Callers Tested For Comparisonmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Then we give it a list of 15 variants at different positions and at different frequencies to introduce them in the final reads. Finally, we used 2 raw-reads-based variant callers: SiNVICT (Kockan et al (2017)) and OutLyzer (Muller et al (2016)) and two UMI-based variant callers: DeepSNVMiner (Andrews et al (2016)) and UMI-VarCal (Sater et al (2020)) in order to compare the 4 tools performance and demonstrate that UMI-Gen correctly inserts the given variants at their respective positions and at the correct frequencies.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Instead, thanks to an innovative homemade pileup algorithm specifically designed to treat the UMI tags present in the reads, UMI-VarCal is faster than both raw-reads-based and UMI-based variant callers. To test our tool, we compare it against two of the best raw-reads-based variant callers that only need the tumor sample to call variants, SiNVICT Kockan et al (2017) and outLyzer Muller et al (2016) and specifically designed to detect lowfrequency variants. We also demonstrate that it can be as -if not more -sensitive as other UMI-based variant callers by comparing it against DeepSNVMiner.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%