2016
DOI: 10.1038/srep36257
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

SSA-ME Detection of cancer driver genes using mutual exclusivity by small subnetwork analysis

Abstract: Because of its clonal evolution a tumor rarely contains multiple genomic alterations in the same pathway as disrupting the pathway by one gene often is sufficient to confer the complete fitness advantage. As a result, many cancer driver genes display mutual exclusivity across tumors. However, searching for mutually exclusive gene sets requires analyzing all possible combinations of genes, leading to a problem which is typically too computationally complex to be solved without a stringent a priori filtering, re… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We carefully benchmarked ActivePathways using the dataset of cancer driver genes predicted by PCAWG 13 . First, we compared the performance of ActivePathways with six methods used in the PCAWG pathway and network analysis working group 14 (Hierarchical HotNet 39,40 , SSA−ME 41 , NBDI 42 , induced subnetwork analysis 40 , CanIsoNet 43 , hypergeometric test). These diverse methods used molecular interaction networks, functional gene sets and/or transcriptomics data to analyze the PCAWG pancancer dataset of predicted cancer driver genes.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We carefully benchmarked ActivePathways using the dataset of cancer driver genes predicted by PCAWG 13 . First, we compared the performance of ActivePathways with six methods used in the PCAWG pathway and network analysis working group 14 (Hierarchical HotNet 39,40 , SSA−ME 41 , NBDI 42 , induced subnetwork analysis 40 , CanIsoNet 43 , hypergeometric test). These diverse methods used molecular interaction networks, functional gene sets and/or transcriptomics data to analyze the PCAWG pancancer dataset of predicted cancer driver genes.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We carefully benchmarked ActivePathways using multiple approaches. First, we compared its performance with six diverse methods used in the PCAWG pathway and network analysis working group 20 (Hierarchical HotNet 21,22 , SSA-ME 23 , NBDI 24 , induced subnetwork analysis 22 , CanIsoNet [ Kahraman et al, in prep ] , and hypergeometric test). The methods used molecular pathway and network information to analyze the PCAWG dataset of predicted cancer driver genes 14 , and a subsequent consensus procedure derived pathway-implicated driver (PID) gene lists with coding (PID-C) and non-coding (PID-N) mutations based on a majority vote.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/385294 doi: bioRxiv preprint first posted online Aug. 7, 2018; subnetwork of the STRING v10 network 11 , and SSA-ME 15 . …”
Section: Pathway and Network Databasesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We performed pathway and network analysis of coding and non-coding somatic mutations from 2,583 tumors from 27 tumor types compiled by the Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) project of the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) 15 , the largest collection of uniformly processed cancer genomes to date. We derive a consensus set of 93 high-confidence pathway-implicated driver genes with non-coding variants (PID-N) and a consensus set of 87 pathway-implicated driver genes with coding variants (PID-C) using seven pathway and network analysis methods.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%