4.7 Article

SCONCE: a method for profiling copy number alterations in cancer evolution using single-cell whole genome sequencing

期刊

BIOINFORMATICS
卷 38, 期 7, 页码 1801-1808

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btac041

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01GM138634-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study introduces a theoretical framework to accurately call CNAs using tumor evolutionary history, developing a method called SCONCE to analyze read depth data from tumor cells which accurately decodes copy number profiles and provides a useful tool for understanding tumor evolution.
Motivation Copy number alterations (CNAs) are a significant driver in cancer growth and development, but remain poorly characterized on the single cell level. Although genome evolution in cancer cells is Markovian through evolutionary time, CNAs are not Markovian along the genome. However, existing methods call copy number profiles with Hidden Markov Models or change point detection algorithms based on changes in observed read depth, corrected by genome content and do not account for the stochastic evolutionary process. Results: We present a theoretical framework to use tumor evolutionary history to accurately call CNAs in a principled manner. To model the tumor evolutionary process and account for technical noise from low coverage single-cell whole genome sequencing data, we developed SCONCE, a method based on a Hidden Markov Model to analyze read depth data from tumor cells using matched normal cells as negative controls. Using a combination of public data sets and simulations, we show SCONCE accurately decodes copy number profiles, and provides a useful tool for understanding tumor evolution. Availabilityand implementation: SCONCE is implemented in Cthornthorn11 and is freely available from https://github.com/ NielsenBerkeleyLab/sconce. Contact: sandra_hui@berkeley.edu or rasmus_nielsen@berkeley.edu Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据