2018
DOI: 10.1109/tbme.2017.2769677
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

WaveDec: A Wavelet Approach to Identify Both Shared and Individual Patterns of Copy-Number Variations

Abstract: Both the shared and individual patterns can be uniquely characterized as well as effectively decomposed within the wavelet space.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Currently, various computational methods have already been developed for analyzing each type of the data sets. For example, aiming at aCGH data, classic methods include fastRPCA (Nowak et al, 2011), PLA (Zhou et al, 2014), WaveDec (Cai et al, 2018), and graCNV (Auer et al, 2007). Meanwhile, aiming at SNP array data, famous methods include GISTIC (Beroukhim et al, 2007), STAC (Diskin et al, 2006), SAIC (Yuan et al, 2012b), and AISAIC (Zhang et al, 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Currently, various computational methods have already been developed for analyzing each type of the data sets. For example, aiming at aCGH data, classic methods include fastRPCA (Nowak et al, 2011), PLA (Zhou et al, 2014), WaveDec (Cai et al, 2018), and graCNV (Auer et al, 2007). Meanwhile, aiming at SNP array data, famous methods include GISTIC (Beroukhim et al, 2007), STAC (Diskin et al, 2006), SAIC (Yuan et al, 2012b), and AISAIC (Zhang et al, 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Popular methods of such category include CODEX [11], panelcn.MOPS [12], DCC [7], WaveDec [13], and HetRCNA [14]. The other two categories of modes are primarily used for the detection of CNVs with the purpose of analyzing genetic diversity and seeking out mutated genes in individuals.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, when facing with relatively low-coverage-depth data, the false-positive rate of CNVnator is not easy to control due to the influence from artifacts such as GC-content bias and uneven distribution of reads, although the CNVnator method has dealt with the GC bias in a reasonable way. Other popular RD-based methods include ReadDepth (Miller et al, 2011), XCAVATOR (Magi et al, 2017), Wavedec (Cai et al, 2018), seqCNV (Chen et al, 2017), iCopyDAV (Dharanipragada et al, 2018), GROM-RD (Smith et al, 2015), CONDEL (Yuan et al, 2018a), CLImAT (Yu et al, 2014), CNV_IFTV (Yuan et al, 2019b), m-HMM (Wang et al, 2014), DCC (Yuan et al, 2018c), CNV-seq (Xie and Tammi, 2009), and FREEC (Boeva et al, 2012). The characteristics of the existing methods are listed in Table 1.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%