ArticleBioinformatics advances2024
Assessing the validity of driver gene identification tools for targeted genome sequencing data.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association of FANCD2, TFPI, and CD33 genes with prognosis of lung adenocarcinoma: a bioinformatics study.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.