2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.canlet.2019.10.040
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Technical differences between sequencing and microarray platforms impact transcriptomic subtyping of colorectal cancer

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

4
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Sample preparation, including ribosomal RNA depletion using the Ribo-Zero Gold rRNA removal kit and sequence library generation with the TruSeq Stranded Total RNA Library Prep Gold kit (Illumina), was done at the Oslo University Hospital Genomics Core Facility. Bioinformatic processing of raw sequencing reads was done as previously described [ 24 ], including adapter trimming with Trimmomatic version 0.38, alignment to the human reference genome GRCh38 using STAR, read sorting by SAMtools, and quantification of reads mapping to protein-coding genes using the HTSeq-count tool (version 0.10.0). The median number of uniquely mapped trimmed RNA sequencing read pairs across the 126 primary tumor samples was 30.2 × 10 6 (10–90th percentile 24.7 × 10 6 –50.2 × 10 6 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Sample preparation, including ribosomal RNA depletion using the Ribo-Zero Gold rRNA removal kit and sequence library generation with the TruSeq Stranded Total RNA Library Prep Gold kit (Illumina), was done at the Oslo University Hospital Genomics Core Facility. Bioinformatic processing of raw sequencing reads was done as previously described [ 24 ], including adapter trimming with Trimmomatic version 0.38, alignment to the human reference genome GRCh38 using STAR, read sorting by SAMtools, and quantification of reads mapping to protein-coding genes using the HTSeq-count tool (version 0.10.0). The median number of uniquely mapped trimmed RNA sequencing read pairs across the 126 primary tumor samples was 30.2 × 10 6 (10–90th percentile 24.7 × 10 6 –50.2 × 10 6 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Gene expression profiles from 477 patients treated surgically for their primary CRC and/or liver metastases at Oslo University Hospital, Norway, between 2009 and 2019 were analyzed (Table 1). The original sample set consisted of 298 metastatic samples, 24 patient-matched non-malignant liver samples, and 317 primary tumor samples (from 315 patients 25,35,36 ). Three metastasis samples with a low tumor cell content were discarded, based on an upper threshold for the "liver background" (described below) estimated in normal liver samples as reference (≤10th percentile).…”
Section: Gene Expression Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Raw RNA sequencing reads were processed in a bioinformatics pipeline implemented with Snakemake (v.6.6.1) and using Python (v.3.9.5), Java (v.11.0.2) and PyYAML (v.5.4.1). The pipeline has previously been described and included adapter trimming with Trimmomatic (v.0.38), read alignment to the human reference genome GRCh38.p13 (v.41) using STAR (v.2.7.6a) with 2-pass mapping and the feature annotation le gencode.v41.annotation.gtf, quanti cation of reads mapping to protein-coding genes using the HTseq-count tool (v.2.0.2), and normalization of gene expression levels by estimation of transcripts per million (TPM) for non-overlapping exonic gene lengths 45 . The TPM values were log2transformed after adding a pseudocount of 1.…”
Section: Gene Expression Pro Ling and Data Processingmentioning
confidence: 99%