335 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24112718)
1. Detecting somatic point mutations in cancer genome sequencing data: a comparison of mutation callers.
Wang Q; Jia P; Li F; Chen H; Ji H; Hucks D; Dahlman KB; Pao W; Zhao Z
Genome Med; 2013; 5(10):91. PubMed ID: 24112718
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Evaluation of Nine Somatic Variant Callers for Detection of Somatic Mutations in Exome and Targeted Deep Sequencing Data.
Krøigård AB; Thomassen M; Lænkholm AV; Kruse TA; Larsen MJ
PLoS One; 2016; 11(3):e0151664. PubMed ID: 27002637
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Detailed simulation of cancer exome sequencing data reveals differences and common limitations of variant callers.
Hofmann AL; Behr J; Singer J; Kuipers J; Beisel C; Schraml P; Moch H; Beerenwinkel N
BMC Bioinformatics; 2017 Jan; 18(1):8. PubMed ID: 28049408
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Accuracy and reproducibility of somatic point mutation calling in clinical-type targeted sequencing data.
Karimnezhad A; Palidwor GA; Thavorn K; Stewart DJ; Campbell PA; Lo B; Perkins TJ
BMC Med Genomics; 2020 Oct; 13(1):156. PubMed ID: 33059707
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Optimized pipeline of MuTect and GATK tools to improve the detection of somatic single nucleotide polymorphisms in whole-exome sequencing data.
do Valle ÍF; Giampieri E; Simonetti G; Padella A; Manfrini M; Ferrari A; Papayannidis C; Zironi I; Garonzi M; Bernardi S; Delledonne M; Martinelli G; Remondini D; Castellani G
BMC Bioinformatics; 2016 Nov; 17(Suppl 12):341. PubMed ID: 28185561
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. SiNVICT: ultra-sensitive detection of single nucleotide variants and indels in circulating tumour DNA.
Kockan C; Hach F; Sarrafi I; Bell RH; McConeghy B; Beja K; Haegert A; Wyatt AW; Volik SV; Chi KN; Collins CC; Sahinalp SC
Bioinformatics; 2017 Jan; 33(1):26-34. PubMed ID: 27531099
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. In-depth comparison of somatic point mutation callers based on different tumor next-generation sequencing depth data.
Cai L; Yuan W; Zhang Z; He L; Chou KC
Sci Rep; 2016 Nov; 6():36540. PubMed ID: 27874022
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A comparative analysis of algorithms for somatic SNV detection in cancer.
Roberts ND; Kortschak RD; Parker WT; Schreiber AW; Branford S; Scott HS; Glonek G; Adelson DL
Bioinformatics; 2013 Sep; 29(18):2223-30. PubMed ID: 23842810
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Systematic comparison of variant calling pipelines of target genome sequencing cross multiple next-generation sequencers.
Feng B; Lai J; Fan X; Liu Y; Wang M; Wu P; Zhou Z; Yan Q; Sun L
Front Genet; 2023; 14():1293974. PubMed ID: 38239851
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of somatic mutation calling methods in amplicon and whole exome sequence data.
Xu H; DiCarlo J; Satya RV; Peng Q; Wang Y
BMC Genomics; 2014 Mar; 15():244. PubMed ID: 24678773
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Practicability of detecting somatic point mutation from RNA high throughput sequencing data.
Sheng Q; Zhao S; Li CI; Shyr Y; Guo Y
Genomics; 2016 May; 107(5):163-9. PubMed ID: 27046520
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Detailed comparison of two popular variant calling packages for exome and targeted exon studies.
Warden CD; Adamson AW; Neuhausen SL; Wu X
PeerJ; 2014; 2():e600. PubMed ID: 25289185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Construction of a combinatorial pipeline using two somatic variant calling methods for whole exome sequence data of gastric cancer.
Kohmoto T; Masuda K; Naruto T; Tange S; Shoda K; Hamada J; Saito M; Ichikawa D; Tajima A; Otsuji E; Imoto I
J Med Invest; 2017; 64(3.4):233-240. PubMed ID: 28954988
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Using VarScan 2 for Germline Variant Calling and Somatic Mutation Detection.
Koboldt DC; Larson DE; Wilson RK
Curr Protoc Bioinformatics; 2013 Dec; 44():15.4.1-17. PubMed ID: 25553206
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Evaluating Variant Calling Tools for Non-Matched Next-Generation Sequencing Data.
Sandmann S; de Graaf AO; Karimi M; van der Reijden BA; Hellström-Lindberg E; Jansen JH; Dugas M
Sci Rep; 2017 Feb; 7():43169. PubMed ID: 28233799
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Inferring Potential Cancer Driving Synonymous Variants.
Zeng Z; Bromberg Y
Genes (Basel); 2022 Apr; 13(5):. PubMed ID: 35627162
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Detection of Somatic Mutations in Exome Sequencing of Tumor-only Samples.
Hsu YC; Hsiao YT; Kao TY; Chang JG; Shieh GS
Sci Rep; 2017 Nov; 7(1):15959. PubMed ID: 29162841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Strategies for identification of somatic variants using the Ion Torrent deep targeted sequencing platform.
Deshpande A; Lang W; McDowell T; Sivakumar S; Zhang J; Wang J; San Lucas FA; Fowler J; Kadara H; Scheet P
BMC Bioinformatics; 2018 Jan; 19(1):5. PubMed ID: 29301485
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Sensitive detection of somatic point mutations in impure and heterogeneous cancer samples.
Cibulskis K; Lawrence MS; Carter SL; Sivachenko A; Jaffe D; Sougnez C; Gabriel S; Meyerson M; Lander ES; Getz G
Nat Biotechnol; 2013 Mar; 31(3):213-9. PubMed ID: 23396013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparing the performance of selected variant callers using synthetic data and genome segmentation.
Bian X; Zhu B; Wang M; Hu Y; Chen Q; Nguyen C; Hicks B; Meerzaman D
BMC Bioinformatics; 2018 Nov; 19(1):429. PubMed ID: 30453880
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
