ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2020
Mutational signature learning with supervised negative binomial non-negative matrix factorization.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Etiology-guided mutational signature learning from DNA repair knockouts in cell lines using supervised NMF.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Robust discovery of mutational signatures using power posteriors.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Model selection and robust inference of mutational signatures using Negative Binomial non-negative matrix factorization.BMC bioinformatics · 2023Article
- Premetastatic shifts of endogenous and exogenous mutational processes support consolidative therapy in EGFR-driven lung adenocarcinoma.Cancer letters · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
motivationUnderstanding the underlying mutational processes of cancer patients has been a long-standing goal in the community and promises to provide new insights that could improve cancer diagnoses and treatments. Mutational signatures are summaries of the mutational processes, and improving the derivation of mutational signatures can yield new discoveries previously obscured by technical and biological confounders. Results from existing mutational signature extraction methods depend on the size of available patient cohort and solely focus on the analysis of mutation count data without considering the exploitation of metadata.
resultsHere we present a supervised method that utilizes cancer type as metadata to extract more distinctive signatures. More specifically, we use a negative binomial non-negative matrix factorization and add a support vector machine loss. We show that mutational signatures extracted by our proposed method have a lower reconstruction error and are designed to be more predictive of cancer type than those generated by unsupervised methods. This design reduces the need for elaborate post-processing strategies in order to recover most of the known signatures unlike the existing unsupervised signature extraction methods. Signatures extracted by a supervised model used in conjunction with cancer-type labels are also more robust, especially when using small and potentially cancer-type limited patient cohorts. Finally, we adapted our model such that molecular features can be utilized to derive an according mutational signature. We used APOBEC expression and MUTYH mutation status to demonstrate the possibilities that arise from this ability. We conclude that our method, which exploits available metadata, improves the quality of mutational signatures as well as helps derive more interpretable representations. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: https://github.com/ratschlab/SNBNMF-mutsig-public. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.