Abstract 419: Reproducibility assessment of mutations calls in exome- and whole-genome sequencing using consensus calling from TCGA and ICGC
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Two large cancer genomic consortia recently published the largest and highest-quality consensus mutations calls for both whole-exome sequencing (WES) and whole-genome sequencing (WGS) in cancer: The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), and the International Cancer Genetics Consortia (ICGC), respectively. Together these datasets encompass more than 60M mutations from ~13,000 samples (~10,000 WES and ~3,000 WGS). An intersecting set of 742 samples, from 22 cancer types, was sequenced using both platforms and mutations were identified using a combined 13 variant calling tools (7 WES and 5 WGS). These samples represent an ideal dataset to compare and contrast WES with WGS performance, reliability, and reproducibility of mutation calling in exons, and provide the community with key regions flanking exons that play a role in carcinogenesis. MAF files were collected using strict filtering criteria for initial file release, including the elimination of germline contaminants, 8-oxo-guanine artifacts, depth filtering and repeat masking. Additional filtering included minimum coverage requirements and restriction of both WES and WGS to variants detected within targeted exons. Finally, we restricted our data to known cancer genes. This final step suggests that these 742 samples have anywhere between 11.5K to 12.3K mutations from covered exons in potential cancer driver genes—WES and WGS, respectively. Preliminary results found that ~70% of samples had had >80% congruent mutations between both platforms; ~25% of samples had had >80% congruent mutations calls in one or the other platform; and the remaining samples had poor performance in replicating identical mutations. We observed that a majority of the variants unique to a sequencing platform were primarily from mutations with low VAF. We also sought to explore regions of the genome that are captured by both technologies despite the knowledge that WES did not target these regions. This is made possible by obtaining access to the primary data resources, and relaxing filtering criteria to include other regions such as 3' and 5' UTR, exon flanking regions, and intronic regions. We identified many recurrent mutations from non-exonic regions that were corroborated using both platforms that have not been previously reported in pan-cancer efforts. At this historic junction in time, as preliminary results from whole-genome sequencing efforts emerge and large exome sequencing efforts taper, 742 samples spanning both efforts can provide insights into the lessons learned from exome sequencing, and provide a solid foundation stepping forward into whole-genome analysis. We will continue to glean insights into the etiology of human disease by using both technologies; however, these mutation calls highlight the challenges that still exist in somatic variant calling, and provide grounds for more critical evaluation of genomic findings in cancer. Citation Format: Matthew H. Bailey, Liang-Bo Wang, Wen-Wei Liang, Steven Foltz, Guanlan Dong, Michael C. Wendl, Michael McLellan, Angela C. Hirbe, Jared Simpson, Mark Gerstein, Li Ding. Reproducibility assessment of mutations calls in exome- and whole-genome sequencing using consensus calling from TCGA and ICGC [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2018; 2018 Apr 14-18; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 419.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,032 | 0,072 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,004 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».