2017
DOI: 10.1186/s12859-016-1450-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

FuGePrior: A novel gene fusion prioritization algorithm based on accurate fusion structure analysis in cancer RNA-seq samples

Abstract: BackgroundLatest Next Generation Sequencing technologies opened the way to a novel era of genomic studies, allowing to gain novel insights into multifactorial pathologies as cancer. In particular gene fusion detection and comprehension have been deeply enhanced by these methods. However, state of the art algorithms for gene fusion identification are still challenging. Indeed, they identify huge amounts of poorly overlapping candidates and all the reported fusions should be considered for in lab validation clea… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A major challenge in benchmarking using real RNA-seq is that the truth set cannot be perfectly defined. Earlier benchmarking studies of fusion prediction accuracy using RNA-seq from cancer cell lines [15, 28, 32, 54, 55] relied on 53 experimentally validated fusion transcripts from four breast cancer cell lines: BT474, KPL4, MCF7, and SKBR3 [5659] (Additional file 1: Table S3). However, these fusions arguably represent too small a target truth set for rigorous benchmarking, and the catalog of true fusions for these four cell lines may still be incomplete.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A major challenge in benchmarking using real RNA-seq is that the truth set cannot be perfectly defined. Earlier benchmarking studies of fusion prediction accuracy using RNA-seq from cancer cell lines [15, 28, 32, 54, 55] relied on 53 experimentally validated fusion transcripts from four breast cancer cell lines: BT474, KPL4, MCF7, and SKBR3 [5659] (Additional file 1: Table S3). However, these fusions arguably represent too small a target truth set for rigorous benchmarking, and the catalog of true fusions for these four cell lines may still be incomplete.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fusion genes were detected on RNA-seq data by applying FuGePrior pipeline to the gene fusion lists provided by ChimeraScan [56] and deFuse [57] tools. According to FuGePrior workflow [58], fusions with the following features were removed: (i) not supported by split reads (i.e., reads harboring the fusion breakpoint); (ii) involving at least one unannotated partner gene; (iii) shared by healthy samples; (iv) characterized by a non-reliable structure; (v) having at least the driver score probability lower than 0.7. The DS score was a measure of the probability of the fusion being an oncogenic event, according to Pegasus [59] and Oncofuse [60].…”
Section: Sequencing and Fusion Detectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, more publications continue emerging to report [ 95 ] or summarize [ 3 , 69 , 70 ] such trans -splicing related chimeras or other noncolinear RNAs. Moreover, many bioinformatic experts are establishing different algorithms to cull chimeras from different sets of high-throughput sequencing data [ 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 ], although all these data sets contain many spurious sequences, as we and others have pointed out [ 5 , 6 , 64 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 ]. This situation is worrisome to us.…”
Section: Trans -Splicing Remains As a Possible mentioning
confidence: 99%