Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 510

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

High-resolution mapping of copy-number alterations with massively parallel sequencing

Open access
Chiang, Derek Y, Getz, Gad, Jaffe, David B, O'Kelly, Michael J T, Zhao, Xiaojun, Carter, Scott L, Russ, Carsten, Nusbaum, Chad, Meyerson, Matthew, Lander, Eric S·2009·Nature Methods

Abstract

Cancer results from somatic alterations in key genes, including point mutations, copy-number alterations and structural rearrangements. A powerful way to discover cancer-causing genes is to identify genomic regions that show recurrent copy-number alterations (gains and losses) in tumor genomes. Recent advances in sequencing technologies suggest that massively parallel sequencing may provide a feasible alternative to DNA microarrays for detecting copy-number alterations. Here we present: (i) a statistical analysis of the power to detect copy-number alterations of a given size; (ii) SegSeq, an algorithm to segment equal copy numbers from massively parallel sequence data; and (iii) analysis of experimental data from three matched pairs of tumor and normal cell lines. We show that a collection of ∼14 million aligned sequence reads from human cell lines has comparable power to detect events as the current generation of DNA microarrays and has over twofold better precision for localizing breakpoints (typically, to within ∼1 kilobase).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nmeth.1276

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Chiang, D. Y., Getz, G., Jaffe, D. B., O'Kelly, M. J. T., Zhao, X., Carter, S. L., Russ, C., Nusbaum, C., Meyerson, M., & Lander, E. S.
Venue
Nature Methods
Published
2008-11-30
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
99-103
ISSN
  • 1548-7091 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-7105
OpenAlex
W2090144921
Cited by
510
References
5
FWCI
20.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.