| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Kanai, M, et al.
(author)
-
- 2023
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 4. |
- Campbell, PJ, et al.
(author)
-
Pan-cancer analysis of whole genomes
- 2020
-
In: Nature. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1476-4687 .- 0028-0836. ; 578:7793, s. 82-
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Cancer is driven by genetic change, and the advent of massively parallel sequencing has enabled systematic documentation of this variation at the whole-genome scale1–3. Here we report the integrative analysis of 2,658 whole-cancer genomes and their matching normal tissues across 38 tumour types from the Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium of the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). We describe the generation of the PCAWG resource, facilitated by international data sharing using compute clouds. On average, cancer genomes contained 4–5 driver mutations when combining coding and non-coding genomic elements; however, in around 5% of cases no drivers were identified, suggesting that cancer driver discovery is not yet complete. Chromothripsis, in which many clustered structural variants arise in a single catastrophic event, is frequently an early event in tumour evolution; in acral melanoma, for example, these events precede most somatic point mutations and affect several cancer-associated genes simultaneously. Cancers with abnormal telomere maintenance often originate from tissues with low replicative activity and show several mechanisms of preventing telomere attrition to critical levels. Common and rare germline variants affect patterns of somatic mutation, including point mutations, structural variants and somatic retrotransposition. A collection of papers from the PCAWG Consortium describes non-coding mutations that drive cancer beyond those in the TERT promoter4; identifies new signatures of mutational processes that cause base substitutions, small insertions and deletions and structural variation5,6; analyses timings and patterns of tumour evolution7; describes the diverse transcriptional consequences of somatic mutation on splicing, expression levels, fusion genes and promoter activity8,9; and evaluates a range of more-specialized features of cancer genomes8,10–18.
|
|
| 5. |
- Niemi, MEK, et al.
(author)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Cantera, JL, et al.
(author)
-
Performance of novel antibodies for lipoarabinomannan to develop diagnostic tests for Mycobacterium tuberculosis
- 2022
-
In: PloS one. - : Public Library of Science (PLoS). - 1932-6203. ; 17:9, s. e0274415-
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Lipoarabinomannan (LAM), a component of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) cell wall, is detectable in the urine of MTB infected patients with active tuberculosis (TB). LAM-specific antibodies (Igs) have been developed by a variety of traditional and recombinant methods for potential use in a rapid diagnostic test (RDT). We evaluated the analytical performance of the TB LAM Igs to identify pairs that offer superior performance over existing urine LAM tests. We assessed 25 new and 4 existing Igs in a matrixed format using a multiplex electrochemiluminescence-based liquid immunoassay. A total of 841 paired Ig combinations were challenged with in vitro cultured LAM (cLAM) derived from MTB strains representing diverse phylogenetic lineages, alongside urinary LAM (uLAM) from the urine of adults with active pulmonary TB. Analytical sensitivity of down-selected Ig pairs was determined using MTB Aoyama-B cLAM, while diagnostic accuracy was determined using clinical samples. When testing cLAM, the reactivity of Ig pairs was similar across MTB lineages 1–4 but lineage 5:6 had significantly more reactivity among Ig pairs. Overall, 41 Ig pairs had a strong binding affinity to cLAM, as compared to the reference pair of S4-20/A194-01, and 28 Ig pairs therein exhibited a strong affinity for both cLAM and uLAM. Retrospective testing on clinical urine specimens demonstrated varying sensitivities (12–80%) and specificities (14–100%). The five top pairs had a similar analytical limit of detection to the reference pair but in four instances, the sensitivity and specificity with clinical uLAM samples was poor. Overall, epitopes presented by uLAM are different from cLAM, which may affect antibody performance when testing uLAM in patient samples. Several new Ig pairs had similar ranges of high sensitivity to cLAM but overall, there were no new candidate Ig pairs identified in this round of screening with increased performance with uLAM as compared to an existing optimal pair.
|
|
