Cited by 31Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsGene expression and cancer classification

Comparative analysis of algorithms for integration of copy number and expression data

Louhimo, Riku, Lepikhova, Tatiana, Monni, Outi, Hautaniemi, Sampsa·2012·Nature Methods

Abstract

Chromosomal instability is a hallmark of cancer, and genes that display abnormal expression in aberrant chromosomal regions are likely to be key players in tumor progression. Identifying such driver genes reliably requires computational methods that can integrate genome-scale data from several sources. We compared the performance of ten algorithms that integrate copy-number and transcriptomics data from 15 head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cell lines, 129 lung squamous cell carcinoma primary tumors and simulated data. Our results revealed clear differences between the methods in terms of sensitivity and specificity as well as in their performance in small and large sample sizes. Results of the comparison are available at http://csbi.ltdk.helsinki.fi/cn2gealgo/.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nmeth.1893

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The combination of RNA-seq and re-sequencing can be used both to remove false positives when inferring fusion genes and to analyze copy number alterations.

    “Moreover, the combination of RNA-seq and re-sequencing can be used both to remove false positives when inferring fusion genes [88] and to analyze copy number alterations [137].”

    From A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [137]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 73 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Louhimo, R., Lepikhova, T., Monni, O., & Hautaniemi, S.
Affiliations
University of Helsinki (FI)
Corresponding author
Hautaniemi, Sampsa
Venue
Nature Methods
Published
2012-02-12
Volume
9
Issue
4
Pages
351-355
ISSN
  • 1548-7091 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-7105
OpenAlex
W1973978516
Cited by
30
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
Keywords
copy number variation, gene expression, data integration, driver genes, chromosomal instability, tumor progression, algorithm comparison, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, lung squamous cell carcinoma, cancer cell lines, sensitivity and specificity, sample size
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Carcinoma, Squamous Cell, Head and Neck Neoplasms, Humans, Lung Neoplasms, Neoplasms, Software, Statistics as Topic, Gene Expression Regulation, Neoplastic, Gene Dosage, Computational Biology, Cell Line, Tumor, Transcriptome

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