Detecting Somatic Mutations Without Matched Normal Samples Using Long Reads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DNA sequencing of tumours to identify somatic mutations has become a critical tool to guide the type of treatment given to cancer patients. The gold standard for mutation calling is comparing sequencing data from the tumour to a matched normal sample to avoid mis-classifying inherited SNPs as mutations. This procedure works extremely well, but in certain situations only a tumour sample is available. While approaches have been developed to find mutations without a matched normal, they have limited accuracy or require specific types of input data (e.g. ultra-deep sequencing). Here we explore the application of single molecule long read sequencing to calling somatic mutations without matched normal samples. We develop a simple theoretical framework to show how haplotype phasing is an important source of information for determining whether a variant is a somatic mutation. We then use simulations to assess the range of experimental parameters (tumour purity, sequencing depth) where this approach is effective. These ideas are developed into a prototype somatic mutation caller, smrest, and its use is demonstrated on two highly mutated cancer cell lines. Finally, we argue that this approach has potential to measure clinically important biomarkers that are based on the genome-wide distribution of mutations: tumour mutation burden and mutation signatures.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".