Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 274

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Integrative analysis of genome-wide loss of heterozygosity and monoallelic expression at nucleotide resolution reveals disrupted pathways in triple-negative breast cancer

Open access
Ha, Gavin, Roth, Andrew, Lai, Daniel, Bashashati, Ali, Ding, Jiarui, Goya, Rodrigo, Giuliany, Ryan, Rosner, Jamie, Oloumi, Arusha, Shumansky, Karey, Chin, Suet-Feung, Turashvili, Gulisa, Hirst, Martin, Caldas, Carlos, Marra, Marco A., Aparicio, Samuel, Shah, Sohrab P.·2012·Genome Research

Abstract

Loss of heterozygosity (LOH) and copy number alteration (CNA) feature prominently in the somatic genomic landscape of tumors. As such, karyotypic aberrations in cancer genomes have been studied extensively to discover novel oncogenes and tumor-suppressor genes. Advances in sequencing technology have enabled the cost-effective detection of tumor genome and transcriptome mutation events at single-base-pair resolution; however, computational methods for predicting segmental regions of LOH in this context are not yet fully explored. Consequently, whole transcriptome, nucleotide-level resolution analysis of monoallelic expression patterns associated with LOH has not yet been undertaken in cancer. We developed a novel approach for inference of LOH from paired tumor/normal sequence data and applied it to a cohort of 23 triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) genomes. Following extensive benchmarking experiments, we describe the nucleotide-resolution landscape of LOH in TNBC and assess the consequent effect of LOH on the transcriptomes of these tumors using RNA-seq-derived measurements of allele-specific expression. We show that the majority of monoallelic expression in the transcriptomes of triple-negative breast cancer can be explained by genomic regions of LOH and establish an upper bound for monoallelic expression that may be explained by other tumor-specific modifications such as epigenetics or mutations. Monoallelically expressed genes associated with LOH reveal that cell cycle, homologous recombination and actin-cytoskeletal functions are putatively disrupted by LOH in TNBC. Finally, we show how inference of LOH can be used to interpret allele frequencies of somatic mutations and postulate on temporal ordering of mutations in the evolutionary history of these tumors.

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 · 10.1101/gr.137570.112

Cites

6 of 6 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

Cited by

See all 274

Metadata

Authors
Ha, G., Roth, A., Lai, D., Bashashati, A., Ding, J., Goya, R., Giuliany, R., Rosner, J., Oloumi, A., Shumansky, K., Chin, S.-F., Turashvili, G., Hirst, M., Caldas, C., Marra, M. A., Aparicio, S., & Shah, S. P.
Venue
Genome Research
Published
2012-05-25
Volume
22
Issue
10
Pages
1995-2007
ISSN
1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2126298009
Cited by
274
References
6
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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.