TrackSig: reconstructing evolutionary trajectories of mutations in cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We present a new method, TrackSig, to estimate the evolutionary trajectories of signatures of different somatic mutational processes from DNA sequencing data from a single, bulk tumour sample. TrackSig uses probability distributions over mutation types, called mutational signatures, to represent different mutational processes and detects the changes in the signature activity using an optimal segmentation algorithm that groups somatic mutations based on their estimated cancer cellular fraction (CCF) and their mutation type (e.g. CAG->CTG). We use two different simulation frameworks to assess both TrackSig’s reconstruction accuracy and its robustness to violations of its assumptions, as well as to compare it to a baseline approach. We find 2-4% median error in reconstructing the signature activities on simulations with varying difficulty with one to three subclones at an average depth of 30x. The size and the direction of the activity change is consistent in 83% and 95% of cases respectively. There were an average of 0.02 missed and 0.12 false positive subclones per sample. In our simulations, grouping mutations by mutation type (TrackSig), rather than by clustering CCF (baseline strategy), performs better at estimating signature activities and at identifying subclonal populations in the complex scenarios like branching, CNA gain, violation of infinite site assumption, and the inclusion of neutrally evolving mutations. TrackSig is open source software, freely available at https://github.com/morrislab/TrackSig .
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".