Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38808071›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics advances2024

Assessing the validity of driver gene identification tools for targeted genome sequencing data.

Felipe Rojas-Rodriguez, Marjanka K Schmidt, Sander Canisius

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Felipe Rojas-RodriguezDivision of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2159-7224
Marjanka K SchmidtDivision of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2228-429X
Sander CanisiusDivision of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3888-8829

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Motivation: Most cancer driver gene identification tools have been developed for whole-exome sequencing data. Targeted sequencing is a popular alternative to whole-exome sequencing for large cancer studies due to its greater depth at a lower cost per tumor. Unlike whole-exome sequencing, targeted sequencing only enables mutation calling for a selected subset of genes. Whether existing driver gene identification tools remain valid in that context has not previously been studied. Results: We evaluated the validity of seven popular driver gene identification tools when applied to targeted sequencing data. Based on whole-exome data of 14 different cancer types from TCGA, we constructed matching targeted datasets by keeping only the mutations overlapping with the pan-cancer MSK-IMPACT panel and, in the case of breast cancer, also the breast-cancer-specific B-CAST panel. We then compared the driver gene predictions obtained on whole-exome and targeted mutation data for each of the seven tools. Differences in how the tools model background mutation rates were the most important determinant of their validity on targeted sequencing data. Based on our results, we recommend OncodriveFML, OncodriveCLUSTL, 20/20+, dNdSCv, and ActiveDriver for driver gene identification in targeted sequencing data, whereas MutSigCV and DriverML are best avoided in that context. Availability and implementation: Code for the analyses is available at https://github.com/SchmidtGroupNKI/TGSdrivergene_validity.

Identifiers

PMID38808071
PMCPMC11132814

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.