| 1. |
- 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.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Sahin, O, et al.
(author)
-
International Multi-Specialty Expert Physician Preoperative Identification of Extranodal Extension n Oropharyngeal Cancer Patients using Computed Tomography: Prospective Blinded Human Inter-Observer Performance Evaluation
- 2024
-
In: medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences. - : Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BackgroundExtranodal extension (ENE) is an important adverse prognostic factor in oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) and is often employed in therapeutic decision making. Clinician-based determination of ENE from radiological imaging is a difficult task with high inter-observer variability. However, the role of clinical specialty on the determination of ENE has been unexplored.MethodsPre-therapy computed tomography (CT) images for 24 human papillomavirus-positive (HPV+) OPC patients were selected for the analysis; 6 scans were randomly chosen to be duplicated, resulting in a total of 30 scans of which 21 had pathologically-confirmed ENE. 34 expert clinician annotators, comprised of 11 radiologists, 12 surgeons, and 11 radiation oncologists separately evaluated the 30 CT scans for ENE and noted the presence or absence of specific radiographic criteria and confidence in their prediction. Discriminative performance was measured using accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and Brier score for each physician. Statistical comparisons of discriminative performance were calculated using Mann Whitney U tests. Significant radiographic factors in correct discrimination of ENE status were determined through a logistic regression analysis. Interobserver agreement was measured using Fleiss’ kappa.ResultsThe median accuracy for ENE discrimination across all specialties was 0.57. There were significant differences between radiologists and surgeons for Brier score (0.33 vs. 0.26), radiation oncologists and surgeons for sensitivity (0.48 vs. 0.69), and radiation oncologists and radiologists/surgeons for specificity (0.89 vs. 0.56). There were no significant differences between specialties for accuracy or AUC. Indistinct capsular contour, nodal necrosis, and nodal matting were significant factors in regression analysis. Fleiss’ kappa was less than 0.6 for all the radiographic criteria, regardless of specialty.ConclusionsDetection of ENE in HPV+OPC patients on CT imaging remains a difficult task with high variability, regardless of clinician specialty. Although some differences do exist between the specialists, they are often minimal. Further research in automated analysis of ENE from radiographic images is likely needed.
|
|
| 4. |
- Bravo, L, et al.
(author)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 5. |
- Tabiri, S, et al.
(author)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 6. |
- Beal, Jacob, et al.
(author)
-
Robust estimation of bacterial cell count from optical density
- 2020
-
In: Communications Biology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2399-3642. ; 3:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Optical density (OD) is widely used to estimate the density of cells in liquid culture, but cannot be compared between instruments without a standardized calibration protocol and is challenging to relate to actual cell count. We address this with an interlaboratory study comparing three simple, low-cost, and highly accessible OD calibration protocols across 244 laboratories, applied to eight strains of constitutive GFP-expressing E. coli. Based on our results, we recommend calibrating OD to estimated cell count using serial dilution of silica microspheres, which produces highly precise calibration (95.5% of residuals <1.2-fold), is easily assessed for quality control, also assesses instrument effective linear range, and can be combined with fluorescence calibration to obtain units of Molecules of Equivalent Fluorescein (MEFL) per cell, allowing direct comparison and data fusion with flow cytometry measurements: in our study, fluorescence per cell measurements showed only a 1.07-fold mean difference between plate reader and flow cytometry data.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
| 11. |
|
|
| 12. |
- Clark, Andrew G., et al.
(author)
-
Evolution of genes and genomes on the Drosophila phylogeny
- 2007
-
In: Nature. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0028-0836 .- 1476-4687. ; 450:7167, s. 203-218
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Comparative analysis of multiple genomes in a phylogenetic framework dramatically improves the precision and sensitivity of evolutionary inference, producing more robust results than single-genome analyses can provide. The genomes of 12 Drosophila species, ten of which are presented here for the first time (sechellia, simulans, yakuba, erecta, ananassae, persimilis, willistoni, mojavensis, virilis and grimshawi), illustrate how rates and patterns of sequence divergence across taxa can illuminate evolutionary processes on a genomic scale. These genome sequences augment the formidable genetic tools that have made Drosophila melanogaster a pre-eminent model for animal genetics, and will further catalyse fundamental research on mechanisms of development, cell biology, genetics, disease, neurobiology, behaviour, physiology and evolution. Despite remarkable similarities among these Drosophila species, we identified many putatively non-neutral changes in protein-coding genes, non-coding RNA genes, and cis-regulatory regions. These may prove to underlie differences in the ecology and behaviour of these diverse species.
|
|
| 13. |
|
|
| 14. |
|
|
| 15. |
|
|
| 16. |
|
|
| 17. |
|
|
| 18. |
|
|
| 19. |
|
|
| 20. |
|
|
| 21. |
|
|
| 22. |
|
|
| 23. |
|
|
| 24. |
- Thomas, HS, et al.
(author)
-
- 2019
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
