Statistically identifying tumor suppressors and oncogenes from pan-cancer genome-sequencing data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Several tools exist to identify cancer driver genes based on somatic mutation data. However, these tools do not account for subclasses of cancer genes: oncogenes, which undergo gain-of-function events, and tumor suppressor genes (TSGs) which undergo loss-of-function. A method which accounts for these subclasses could improve performance while also suggesting a mechanism of action for new putative cancer genes. RESULTS: We develop a panel of five complementary statistical tests and assess their performance against a curated set of 99 HiConf cancer genes using a pan-cancer dataset of 1.7 million mutations. We identify patient bias as a novel signal for cancer gene discovery, and use it to significantly improve detection of oncogenes over existing methods (AUROC = 0.894). Additionally, our test of truncation event rate separates oncogenes and TSGs from one another (AUROC = 0.922). Finally, a random forest integrating the five tests further improves performance and identifies new cancer genes, including CACNG3, HDAC2, HIST1H1E, NXF1, GPS2 and HLA-DRB1. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: All mutation data, instructions, functions for computing the statistics and integrating them, as well as the HiConf gene panel, are available at www.github.com/Bose-Lab/Improved-Detection-of-Cancer-Genes. CONTACT: rbose@dom.wustl.edu SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".