4.8 Article

TumorMap: Exploring the Molecular Similarities of Cancer Samples in an Interactive Portal

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 77, 期 21, 页码 E111-E114

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-0580

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [U24-CA143858, 1R01CA180778]
  2. National Human Genome Research Institute [5U54HG006097]
  3. National Institute for General Medical Sciences [5R01GM109031]
  4. National Science Foundation Office of Cyberinfrastructure CAREER [0845783]
  5. Prostate Cancer Foundation
  6. Stand Up To Cancer - Prostate Cancer Foundation [SU2C-AACR-DT0812]
  7. Movember Foundation
  8. St. Baldricks Foundation Treehouse Childhood Cancer [427053]
  9. University of California California Precision Medicine Initiative: California Kids Cancer Comparison [OPR014109]
  10. Alex's Lemonade Stand Foundation
  11. Div Of Biological Infrastructure
  12. Direct For Biological Sciences [0845783] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vast amounts of molecular data are being collected on tumor samples, which provide unique opportunities for discovering trends within and between cancer subtypes. Such cross-cancer analyses require computational methods that enable intuitive and interactive browsing of thousands of samples based on their molecular similarity. We created a portal called TumorMap to assist in exploration and statistical interrogation of high-dimensional complex omics data in an interactive and easily interpret-able way. In the TumorMap, samples are arranged on a hexagonal grid based on their similarity to one another in the original genomic space and are rendered with Google's Map technology. While the important feature of this public portal is the ability for the users to build maps from their owndata, we pre-built genomicmaps from several previously published projects. We demonstrate the utility of this portal by presenting results obtained from The Cancer Genome Atlas project data. (C) 2017 AACR.

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

4.8
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