4.8 Article

Identification of large rearrangements in cancer genomes with barcode linked reads

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 46, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkx1193

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01HG006137, P01HG00205, 2R01HG006137]
  2. Intermountain Healthcare
  3. Translational Research Award from the Stanford Cancer Institute
  4. American Cancer Society [RSG-13-297-01-TBG]
  5. Doris Duke Charitable Foundation
  6. Clayville Foundation
  7. Seiler Foundation
  8. Howard Hughes Medical Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Large genomic rearrangements involve inversions, deletions and other structural changes that span Megabase segments of the human genome. This category of genetic aberration is the cause of many hereditary genetic disorders and contributes to pathogenesis of diseases like cancer. We developed a new algorithm called ZoomX for analysing barcode-linked sequence reads-these sequences can be traced to individual high molecular weight DNA molecules (> 50 kb). To generate barcode linked sequence reads, we employ a library preparation technology (10X Genomics) that uses droplets to partition and barcode DNA molecules. Using linked read data from whole genome sequencing, we identify large genomic rearrangements, typically greater than 200kb, even when they are only present in low allelic fractions. Our algorithm uses a Poisson scan statistic to identify genomic rearrangement junctions, determine counts of junction-spanning molecules and calculate a Fisher's exact test for determining statistical significance for somatic aberrations. Utilizing a well-characterized human genome, we benchmarked this approach to accurately identify large rearrangement. Subsequently, we demonstrated that our algorithm identifies somatic rearrangements when present in lower allelic fractions as occurs in tumors. We characterized a set of complex cancer rearrangements with multiple classes of structural aberrations and with possible roles in oncogenesis.

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