not all next generation sequencing diagnostics are created equal: understanding the nuances of solid tumor assay design for somatic mutation detection
Clicks: 232
ID: 244136
2015
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
232 views
42 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #92 of 132 articles by views in The Journal of investigative dermatology
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 132 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
The molecular characterization of tumors using next generation sequencing (NGS) is an emerging diagnostic tool that is quickly becoming an integral part of clinical decision making. Cancer genomic profiling involves significant challenges including DNA quality and quantity, tumor heterogeneity, and the need to detect a wide variety of complex genetic mutations. Most available comprehensive diagnostic tests rely on primer based amplification or probe based capture methods coupled with NGS to detect hotspot mutation sites or whole regions implicated in disease. These tumor panels utilize highly customized bioinformatics pipelines to perform the difficult task of accurately calling cancer relevant alterations such as single nucleotide variations, small indels or large genomic alterations from the NGS data. In this review, we will discuss the challenges of solid tumor assay design/analysis and report a case study that highlights the need to include complementary technologies (i.e., arrays) and germline analysis in tumor testing to reliably identify copy number alterations and actionable variants.
| Reference Key |
gray2015cancersnot
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Phillip N. Gray;Charles L.M. Dunlop;Aaron M. Elliott |
| Journal | The Journal of investigative dermatology |
| Year | 2015 |
| DOI |
10.3390/cancers7030837
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.