4.7 Article

Quantifying tumor heterogeneity in whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing data

Journal

BIOINFORMATICS
Volume 30, Issue 24, Pages 3532-3540

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu651

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) graduate research fellowship [DGE0228243]
  2. National Science Foundation (NSF) career award [CCF-1053753]
  3. National Institutes of Health [RO1HG005690]
  4. Burroughs Wellcome Fund, an Alfred P Sloan Research Fellowship
  5. Division of Computing and Communication Foundations
  6. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr [1053753] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Motivation: Most tumor samples are a heterogeneous mixture of cells, including admixture by normal (non-cancerous) cells and subpopulations of cancerous cells with different complements of somatic aberrations. This intra-tumor heterogeneity complicates the analysis of somatic aberrations in DNA sequencing data from tumor samples. Results: We describe an algorithm called THetA2 that infers the composition of a tumor sample-including not only tumor purity but also the number and content of tumor subpopulations-directly from both whole-genome (WGS) and whole-exome (WXS) high-throughput DNA sequencing data. This algorithm builds on our earlier Tumor Heterogeneity Analysis (THetA) algorithm in several important directions. These include improved ability to analyze highly rearranged genomes using a variety of data types: both WGS sequencing (including low similar to 7 x coverage) and WXS sequencing. We apply our improved THetA2 algorithm to WGS (including low-pass) and WXS sequence data from 18 samples from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). We find that the improved algorithm is substantially faster and identifies numerous tumor samples containing subclonal populations in the TCGA data, including in one highly rearranged sample for which other tumor purity estimation algorithms were unable to estimate tumor purity.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available