English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Copy number aberrations (CNAs) are known to strongly affect oncogenes and tumour suppressor genes. Given the critical role CNAs play in cancer research, it is essential to accurately identify CNAs from tumour genomes. One particular challenge in finding CNAs is the effect of confounding variables. To address this issue, we assessed how commonly used CNA identification algorithms perform on SNP 6.0 genotyping data in the presence of confounding variables. We simulated realistic synthetic data with varying levels of three confounding variables-the tumour purity, the length of a copy number region and the CNA burden (the percentage of CNAs present in a profiled genome)-and evaluated the performance of OncoSNP, ASCAT, GenoCNA, GISTIC and CGHcall. Furthermore, we implemented and assessed CGHcall*, an adjusted version of CGHcall accounting for high CNA burden. Our analysis on synthetic data indicates that tumour purity and the CNA burden strongly influence the performance of all the algorithms. No algorithm can correctly find lost and gained genomic regions across all tumour purities. The length of CNA regions influenced the performance of ASCAT, CGHcall and GISTIC. OncoSNP, GenoCNA and CGHcall* showed little sensitivity. Overall, CGHcall* and OncoSNP showed reasonable performance, particularly in samples with high tumour purity. Our analysis on the HapMap data revealed a good overlap between CGHcall, CGHcall* and GenoCNA results and experimentally validated data. Our exploratory analysis on the TCGA HNSCC data revealed plausible results of CGHcall, CGHcall* and GISTIC in consensus HNSCC CNA regions. Code is available at https://github.com/adspit/PASCAL.

Copy number aberrations from Affymetrix SNP 6.0 genotyping data—how accurate are commonly used prediction approaches?