Dataset Information

Computational methods for detecting cancer hotspots.

ABSTRACT: Cancer mutations that are recurrently observed among patients are known as hotspots. Hotspots are highly relevant because they are, presumably, likely functional. Known hotspots in BRAF, PIK3CA, TP53, KRAS, IDH1 support this idea. However, hundreds of hotspots have never been validated experimentally. The detection of hotspots nevertheless is challenging because background mutations obscure their statistical and computational identification. Although several algorithms have been applied to identify hotspots, they have not been reviewed before. Thus, in this mini-review, we summarize more than 40 computational methods applied to detect cancer hotspots in coding and non-coding DNA. We first organize the methods in cluster-based, 3D, position-specific, and miscellaneous to provide a general overview. Then, we describe their embed procedures, implementations, variations, and differences. Finally, we discuss some advantages, provide some ideas for future developments, and mention opportunities such as application to viral integrations, translocations, and epigenetics.

SUBMITTER: Martinez-Ledesma E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7711189 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Computational methods for detecting cancer hotspots.

Martinez-Ledesma Emmanuel E Flores David D Trevino Victor V

Computational and structural biotechnology journal 20201119

Cancer mutations that are recurrently observed among patients are known as hotspots. Hotspots are highly relevant because they are, presumably, likely functional. Known hotspots in BRAF, PIK3CA, TP53, KRAS, IDH1 support this idea. However, hundreds of hotspots have never been validated experimentally. The detection of hotspots nevertheless is challenging because background mutations obscure their statistical and computational identification. Although several algorithms have been applied to ident ...[more]

PMID: 33304455

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:During the past 20 years, enormous efforts have been expended globally to eliminate lymphatic filariasis (LF) through mass drug administration (MDA). However, small endemic foci (microfoci) of LF may threaten the presumed inevitable decline of infections after MDA cessation. We conducted microsimulation modeling to assess the ability of different types of surveillance to identify microfoci in these settings. METHODS:Five or ten microfoci of radius 1, 2, or 3 km with infection marker prevalence (intensity) of 3, 6, or 10 times background prevalence were placed in spatial simulations, run in R Version 3.2. Diagnostic tests included microfilaremia, immunochromatographic test (ICT), and Wb123 ELISA. Population size was fixed at 360,000 in a 60 x 60 km area; demographics were based on literature for Sub-Saharan African populations. Background ICT prevalence in 6-7 year olds was anchored at 1.0%, and the prevalence in the remaining population was adjusted by age. Adults≥18 years, women aged 15-40 years (WCBA), children aged 6-7 years, or children≤5 years were sampled. Cluster (CS), simple random sampling (SRS), and TAS-like sampling were simulated, with follow-up testing of the nearest 20, 100, or 500 persons around each infection-marker-positive person. A threshold number of positive persons in follow-up testing indicated a suspected microfocus. Suspected microfoci identified during surveillance and actual microfoci in the simulation were compared to obtain a predictive value positive (PVP). Each parameter set was referred to as a protocol. Protocols were scored by efficiency, defined as the most microfoci identified, the fewest persons requiring primary and follow-up testing, and the highest PVP. Negative binomial regression was used to estimate aggregate effects of different variables on efficiency metrics. RESULTS:All variables were significantly associated with efficiency metrics. Additional follow-up tests beyond 20 did not greatly increase the number of microfoci detected, but significantly negatively impacted efficiency. Of 3,402 protocols evaluated, 384 (11.3%) identified all five microfoci (PVP 3.4-100.0%) and required testing 0.73-35.6% of the population. All used SRS and 378 (98.4%) only identified all five microfoci if they were 2-3 km diameter or high-intensity (6x or 10x); 374 (97.4%) required ICT or Wb123 testing to identify all five microfoci, and 281 (73.0%) required sampling adults or WCBA. The most efficient CS protocols identified two (40%) microfoci. After limiting to protocols with 1-km radius microfoci of 3x intensity (n = 378), eight identified all five microfoci; all used SRS and ICT and required testing 31.2-33.3% of the population. The most efficient CS and TAS-like protocols as well as those using microfilaremia testing identified only one (20%) microfocus when they were limited to 1-km radius and 3x intensity. CONCLUSION:In this model, SRS, ICT, and sampling of adults maximized microfocus detection efficiency. Follow-up sampling of more persons did not necessarily increase protocol efficiency. Current approaches towards surveillance, including TAS, may not detect small, low-intensity LF microfoci that could remain after cessation of MDA. The model provides many surveillance protocols that can be selected for optimal outcomes.

Dataset Information

Computational methods for detecting cancer hotspots.

Publications

Computational methods for detecting cancer hotspots.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets