240 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27874022)
1. 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]
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. 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]
4. Comparison of somatic variant detection algorithms using Ion Torrent targeted deep sequencing data.
Wang Q; Kotoula V; Hsu PC; Papadopoulou K; Ho JWK; Fountzilas G; Giannoulatou E
BMC Med Genomics; 2019 Dec; 12(Suppl 9):181. PubMed ID: 31874647
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Comprehensive benchmarking of SNV callers for highly admixed tumor data.
Bohnert R; Vivas S; Jansen G
PLoS One; 2017; 12(10):e0186175. PubMed ID: 29020110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. SNVSniffer: an integrated caller for germline and somatic single-nucleotide and indel mutations.
Liu Y; Loewer M; Aluru S; Schmidt B
BMC Syst Biol; 2016 Aug; 10 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):47. PubMed ID: 27489955
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Evaluating the performance of low-frequency variant calling tools for the detection of variants from short-read deep sequencing data.
Xiang X; Lu B; Song D; Li J; Shu K; Pu D
Sci Rep; 2023 Nov; 13(1):20444. PubMed ID: 37993475
[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. SNooPer: a machine learning-based method for somatic variant identification from low-pass next-generation sequencing.
Spinella JF; Mehanna P; Vidal R; Saillour V; Cassart P; Richer C; Ouimet M; Healy J; Sinnett D
BMC Genomics; 2016 Nov; 17(1):912. PubMed ID: 27842494
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Archived neonatal dried blood spot samples can be used for accurate whole genome and exome-targeted next-generation sequencing.
Hollegaard MV; Grauholm J; Nielsen R; Grove J; Mandrup S; Hougaard DM
Mol Genet Metab; 2013; 110(1-2):65-72. PubMed ID: 23830478
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Using genotype array data to compare multi- and single-sample variant calls and improve variant call sets from deep coverage whole-genome sequencing data.
Shringarpure SS; Mathias RA; Hernandez RD; O'Connor TD; Szpiech ZA; Torres R; De La Vega FM; Bustamante CD; Barnes KC; Taub MA;
Bioinformatics; 2017 Apr; 33(8):1147-1153. PubMed ID: 28035032
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Dual Deep Sequencing Improves the Accuracy of Low-Frequency Somatic Mutation Detection in Cancer Gene Panel Testing.
Ura H; Togi S; Niida Y
Int J Mol Sci; 2020 May; 21(10):. PubMed ID: 32429412
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Inconsistency and features of single nucleotide variants detected in whole exome sequencing versus transcriptome sequencing: A case study in lung cancer.
O'Brien TD; Jia P; Xia J; Saxena U; Jin H; Vuong H; Kim P; Wang Q; Aryee MJ; Mino-Kenudson M; Engelman JA; Le LP; Iafrate AJ; Heist RS; Pao W; Zhao Z
Methods; 2015 Jul; 83():118-27. PubMed ID: 25913717
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A computational approach to distinguish somatic vs. germline origin of genomic alterations from deep sequencing of cancer specimens without a matched normal.
Sun JX; He Y; Sanford E; Montesion M; Frampton GM; Vignot S; Soria JC; Ross JS; Miller VA; Stephens PJ; Lipson D; Yelensky R
PLoS Comput Biol; 2018 Feb; 14(2):e1005965. PubMed ID: 29415044
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. QQ-SNV: single nucleotide variant detection at low frequency by comparing the quality quantiles.
Van der Borght K; Thys K; Wetzels Y; Clement L; Verbist B; Reumers J; van Vlijmen H; Aerssens J
BMC Bioinformatics; 2015 Nov; 16():379. PubMed ID: 26554718
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. RDscan: A New Method for Improving Germline and Somatic Variant Calling Based on Read Depth Distribution.
Lee S; Hong S; Woo J; Lee JH; Kim K; Kim L; Park K; Jung J
J Comput Biol; 2022 Sep; 29(9):987-1000. PubMed ID: 35749140
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
