2018
DOI: 10.1101/371039
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Every which way? On predicting tumor evolution using cancer progression models

Abstract: Cancer progression models (CPMs) use cross-sectional samples to identify restrictions in the order of accumulation of driver mutations. CPMs implicitly encode all the possible tumor progression paths or evolutionary trajectories during cancer progression, which can be of help for diagnostic, prognostic, and treatment purposes. Here we examine whether CPMs can be used to predict the true distribution of tumor progression paths and to estimate evolutionary unpredictability. Using simulations we show that the agr… Show more

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
16
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

2
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 69 publications
(102 reference statements)
0
16
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In other words, while evolutionary constraints may be difficult to learn (Diaz-Uriarte, 2018), this does not necessarily imply that predictability cannot be estimated reliably (which is a simpler task addressed and well approximated by the subsetting scheme). The robust estimation conferred by our subsetting scheme partly explains the different conclusion of our study as compared to the previous one (Diaz-Uriarte and Vasallo, 2018), which reports that cancer evolution can be unpredictable for many datasets. In addition, the former study uses the ‘Lines of Descent’ (Szendro et al , 2013), instead of the SSWM assumption employed here, such that different evolutionary regimes are analyzed.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 52%
“…In other words, while evolutionary constraints may be difficult to learn (Diaz-Uriarte, 2018), this does not necessarily imply that predictability cannot be estimated reliably (which is a simpler task addressed and well approximated by the subsetting scheme). The robust estimation conferred by our subsetting scheme partly explains the different conclusion of our study as compared to the previous one (Diaz-Uriarte and Vasallo, 2018), which reports that cancer evolution can be unpredictable for many datasets. In addition, the former study uses the ‘Lines of Descent’ (Szendro et al , 2013), instead of the SSWM assumption employed here, such that different evolutionary regimes are analyzed.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 52%
“…Simulated data were taken from [27], where complete details are provided. In summary, simulations were conducted under evolutionary scenarios that differed in the number of genes, the type of fitness landscape, the initial population size, and the mutation rates.…”
Section: Simulated Evolutionary Processes and Samplingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fitness landscapes were of three types: representable, local maxima or Rough Mount Fuji (RMF). The three types of fitness landscapes incorporate increasing departures from the assumptions of most CPMs: for the representable fitness landscapes a DAG of restrictions exists with the same accessible genotypes and accessible mutational paths; for local maxima fitness landscapes the set of accessible genotypes can be represented by a DAG of restrictions, but there are local fitness maxima and the fitness graph has missing paths [27]; the genotype with all genes mutated might or might not be the genotype with largest fitness. The RMF fitness landscapes [22,33,50] usually have multiple local fitness maxima and considerable reciprocal sign epistasis so not even the set of accessible genotypes can be represented by a DAG of restrictions.…”
Section: Simulated Evolutionary Processes and Samplingmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations