Cited by 94Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsGenome Rearrangement Algorithms

Identification of copy number variations and translocations in cancer cells from Hi-C data

Open access
Chakraborty, Abhijit, Ay, Ferhat·2018·Bioinformatics

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

MOTIVATION: Eukaryotic chromosomes adapt a complex and highly dynamic three-dimensional (3D) structure, which profoundly affects different cellular functions and outcomes including changes in epigenetic landscape and in gene expression. Making the scenario even more complex, cancer cells harbor chromosomal abnormalities [e.g. copy number variations (CNVs) and translocations] altering their genomes both at the sequence level and at the level of 3D organization. High-throughput chromosome conformation capture techniques (e.g. Hi-C), which are originally developed for decoding the 3D structure of the chromatin, provide a great opportunity to simultaneously identify the locations of genomic rearrangements and to investigate the 3D genome organization in cancer cells. Even though Hi-C data has been used for validating known rearrangements, computational methods that can distinguish rearrangement signals from the inherent biases of Hi-C data and from the actual 3D conformation of chromatin, and can precisely detect rearrangement locations de novo have been missing. RESULTS: In this work, we characterize how intra and inter-chromosomal Hi-C contacts are distributed for normal and rearranged chromosomes to devise a new set of algorithms (i) to identify genomic segments that correspond to CNV regions such as amplifications and deletions (HiCnv), (ii) to call inter-chromosomal translocations and their boundaries (HiCtrans) from Hi-C experiments and (iii) to simulate Hi-C data from genomes with desired rearrangements and abnormalities (AveSim) in order to select optimal parameters for and to benchmark the accuracy of our methods. Our results on 10 different cancer cell lines with Hi-C data show that we identify a total number of 105 amplifications and 45 deletions together with 90 translocations, whereas we identify virtually no such events for two karyotypically normal cell lines. Our CNV predictions correlate very well with whole genome sequencing data among chromosomes with CNV events for a breast cancer cell line (r = 0.89) and capture most of the CNVs we simulate using Avesim. For HiCtrans predictions, we report evidence from the literature for 30 out of 90 translocations for eight of our cancer cell lines. Furthermore, we show that our tools identify and correctly classify relatively understudied rearrangements such as double minutes and homogeneously staining regions. Considering the inherent limitations of existing techniques for karyotyping (i.e. missing balanced rearrangements and those near repetitive regions), the accurate identification of CNVs and translocations in a cost-effective and high-throughput setting is still a challenge. Our results show that the set of tools we develop effectively utilize moderately sequenced Hi-C libraries (100-300 million reads) to identify known and de novo chromosomal rearrangements/abnormalities in well-established cancer cell lines. With the decrease in required number of cells and the increase in attainable resolution, we believe that our framework will pave the way towards comprehensive mapping of genomic rearrangements in primary cells from cancer patients using Hi-C. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: CNV calling: https://github.com/ay-lab/HiCnv, Translocation calling: https://github.com/ay-lab/HiCtrans and Hi-C simulation: https://github.com/ay-lab/AveSim. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

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 · 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx664

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chakraborty, A., & Ay, F.
Affiliations
La Jolla Institute for Immunology (US)
Corresponding author
Ay, Ferhat
Venue
Bioinformatics
Published
2017-10-18
Volume
34
Issue
2
Pages
338-345
ISSN
  • 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
  • 1367-4811
OpenAlex
W2952744897
Cited by
94
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2014: 1
FWCI
5.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Bioinformatics (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R35GM128938)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genome Rearrangement Algorithms
Keywords
copy number variation, chromosomal translocation, Hi-C data, 3D genome organization, chromatin conformation, double minutes, homogeneously staining regions, cancer cell lines, benchmarking, breast cancer

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