4.6 Article

TAGCNA: A Method to Identify Significant Consensus Events of Copy Number Alterations in Cancer

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 7, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0041082

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [61070137, 91130006, 60933009]
  2. US National Institutes of Health [CA160036, CA149147, GM085665]
  3. Natural Science Basic Research Plan in Shaanxi Province of China [2012JQ8027]
  4. Science and Technology Research Development Program in Shaanxi province of China [2009K01-56]
  5. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [K50511030002]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Somatic copy number alteration (CNA) is a common phenomenon in cancer genome. Distinguishing significant consensus events (SCEs) from random background CNAs in a set of subjects has been proven to be a valuable tool to study cancer. In order to identify SCEs with an acceptable type I error rate, better computational approaches should be developed based on reasonable statistics and null distributions. In this article, we propose a new approach named TAGCNA for identifying SCEs in somatic CNAs that may encompass cancer driver genes. TAGCNA employs a peel-off permutation scheme to generate a reasonable null distribution based on a prior step of selecting tag CNA markers from the genome being considered. We demonstrate the statistical power of TAGCNA on simulated ground truth data, and validate its applicability using two publicly available cancer datasets: lung and prostate adenocarcinoma. TAGCNA identifies SCEs that are known to be involved with proto-oncogenes (e.g. EGFR, CDK4) and tumor suppressor genes (e.g. CDKN2A, CDKN2B), and provides many additional SCEs with potential biological relevance in these data. TAGCNA can be used to analyze the significance of CNAs in various cancers. It is implemented in R and is freely available at http://tagcna.sourceforge.net/.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available