Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39085295›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Inference of chromosome selection parameters and missegregation rate in cancer from DNA-sequencing data.

Zijin Xiang, Zhihan Liu, Khanh N Dinh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 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.

Zijin XiangIrving Institute for Cancer Dynamics and Department of Statistics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Zhihan LiuIrving Institute for Cancer Dynamics and Department of Statistics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Khanh N DinhIrving Institute for Cancer Dynamics and Department of Statistics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. knd2127@columbia.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-0010-4251

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aneuploidy is frequently observed in cancers and has been linked to poor patient outcome. Analysis of aneuploidy in DNA-sequencing (DNA-seq) data necessitates untangling the effects of the Copy Number Aberration (CNA) occurrence rates and the selection coefficients that act upon the resulting karyotypes. We introduce a parameter inference algorithm that takes advantage of both bulk and single-cell DNA-seq cohorts. The method is based on Approximate Bayesian Computation (ABC) and utilizes CINner, our recently introduced simulation algorithm of chromosomal instability in cancer. We examine three groups of statistics to summarize the data in the ABC routine: (A) Copy Number-based measures, (B) phylogeny tip statistics, and (C) phylogeny balance indices. Using these statistics, our method can recover both the CNA probabilities and selection parameters from ground truth data, and performs well even for data cohorts of relatively small sizes. We find that only statistics in groups A and C are well-suited for identifying CNA probabilities, and only group A carries the signals for estimating selection parameters. Moreover, the low number of CNA events at large scale compared to cell counts in single-cell samples means that statistics in group B cannot be estimated accurately using phylogeny reconstruction algorithms at the chromosome level. As data from both bulk and single-cell DNA-sequencing techniques becomes increasingly available, our inference framework promises to facilitate the analysis of distinct cancer types, differentiation between selection and neutral drift, and prediction of cancer clonal dynamics.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsNeoplasmsSequence Analysis, DNAAneuploidyBayes TheoremChromosomal InstabilityDNA Copy Number VariationsHumansSingle-Cell Analysis

Identifiers

PMID39085295
PMCPMC11291923

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.