↓ Skip to main content

On Statistical Modeling of Sequencing Noise in High Depth Data to Assess Tumor Evolution

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Statistical Physics, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
Title
On Statistical Modeling of Sequencing Noise in High Depth Data to Assess Tumor Evolution
Published in
Journal of Statistical Physics, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10955-017-1945-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raul Rabadan, Gyan Bhanot, Sonia Marsilio, Nicholas Chiorazzi, Laura Pasqualucci, Hossein Khiabanian

Abstract

One cause of cancer mortality is tumor evolution to therapy-resistant disease. First line therapy often targets the dominant clone, and drug resistance can emerge from preexisting clones that gain fitness through therapy-induced natural selection. Such mutations may be identified using targeted sequencing assays by analysis of noise in high-depth data. Here, we develop a comprehensive, unbiased model for sequencing error background. We find that noise in sufficiently deep DNA sequencing data can be approximated by aggregating negative binomial distributions. Mutations with frequencies above noise may have prognostic value. We evaluate our model with simulated exponentially expanded populations as well as data from cell line and patient sample dilution experiments, demonstrating its utility in prognosticating tumor progression. Our results may have the potential to identify significant mutations that can cause recurrence. These results are relevant in the pre-treatment clinical setting to determine appropriate therapy and prepare for potential recurrence pretreatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 21%
Student > Bachelor 2 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 14%
Professor 2 14%
Other 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 2 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Mathematics 3 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 14%
Physics and Astronomy 2 14%
Computer Science 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 2 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 August 2018.
All research outputs
#14,370,803
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Statistical Physics
#489
of 1,747 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,095
of 440,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Statistical Physics
#8
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,747 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 440,658 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.