4.6 Article

SiDCoN: A Tool to Aid Scoring of DNA Copy Number Changes in SNP Chip Data

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 2, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001093

关键词

-

资金

  1. United States National Cancer Institute [CA 001833-03]
  2. Queensland Cancer Fund
  3. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia [199600]
  4. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The recent application of genome-wide, single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) microarrays to investigate DNA copy number aberrations in cancer has provided unparalleled sensitivity for identifying genomic changes. In some instances the complexity of these changes makes them difficult to interpret, particularly when tumour samples are contaminated with normal (stromal) tissue. Current automated scoring algorithms require considerable manual data checking and correction, especially when assessing uncultured tumour specimens. To address these limitations we have developed a visual tool to aid in the analysis of DNA copy number data. Simulated DNA Copy Number (SiDCoN) is a spreadsheet-based application designed to simulate the appearance of B-allele and logR plots for all known types of tumour DNA copy number changes, in the presence or absence of stromal contamination. The system allows the user to determine the level of stromal contamination, as well as specify up to 3 different DNA copy number aberrations for up to 5000 data points (representing individual SNPs). This allows users great flexibility to assess simple or complex DNA copy number combinations. We demonstrate how this utility can be used to estimate the level of stromal contamination within tumour samples and its application in deciphering the complex heterogeneous copy number changes we have observed in a series of tumours. We believe this tool will prove useful to others working in the area, both as a training tool, and to aid in the interpretation of complex copy number changes.

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

4.6
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