186 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34257393)
1. Predicting pathogenic non-coding SVs disrupting the 3D genome in 1646 whole cancer genomes using multiple instance learning.
Nieboer MM; Nguyen L; de Ridder J
Sci Rep; 2021 Jul; 11(1):14411. PubMed ID: 34257393
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. svMIL: predicting the pathogenic effect of TAD boundary-disrupting somatic structural variants through multiple instance learning.
Nieboer MM; de Ridder J
Bioinformatics; 2020 Dec; 36(Suppl_2):i692-i699. PubMed ID: 33381833
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Disruption of chromatin folding domains by somatic genomic rearrangements in human cancer.
Akdemir KC; Le VT; Chandran S; Li Y; Verhaak RG; Beroukhim R; Campbell PJ; Chin L; Dixon JR; Futreal PA; ;
Nat Genet; 2020 Mar; 52(3):294-305. PubMed ID: 32024999
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. StrVCTVRE: A supervised learning method to predict the pathogenicity of human genome structural variants.
Sharo AG; Hu Z; Sunyaev SR; Brenner SE
Am J Hum Genet; 2022 Feb; 109(2):195-209. PubMed ID: 35032432
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. SVFX: a machine learning framework to quantify the pathogenicity of structural variants.
Kumar S; Harmanci A; Vytheeswaran J; Gerstein MB
Genome Biol; 2020 Nov; 21(1):274. PubMed ID: 33168059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Integrated paired-end enhancer profiling and whole-genome sequencing reveals recurrent
Ooi WF; Nargund AM; Lim KJ; Zhang S; Xing M; Mandoli A; Lim JQ; Ho SWT; Guo Y; Yao X; Lin SJ; Nandi T; Xu C; Ong X; Lee M; Tan AL; Lam YN; Teo JX; Kaneda A; White KP; Lim WK; Rozen SG; Teh BT; Li S; Skanderup AJ; Tan P
Gut; 2020 Jun; 69(6):1039-1052. PubMed ID: 31542774
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Prioritization of genes driving congenital phenotypes of patients with de novo genomic structural variants.
Middelkamp S; Vlaar JM; Giltay J; Korzelius J; Besselink N; Boymans S; Janssen R; de la Fonteijne L; van Binsbergen E; van Roosmalen MJ; Hochstenbach R; Giachino D; Talkowski ME; Kloosterman WP; Cuppen E
Genome Med; 2019 Dec; 11(1):79. PubMed ID: 31801603
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Dynamic Interplay between Structural Variations and 3D Genome Organization in Pancreatic Cancer.
Du Y; Gu Z; Li Z; Yuan Z; Zhao Y; Zheng X; Bo X; Chen H; Wang C
Adv Sci (Weinh); 2022 Jun; 9(18):e2200818. PubMed ID: 35570408
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Integrative detection and analysis of structural variation in cancer genomes.
Dixon JR; Xu J; Dileep V; Zhan Y; Song F; Le VT; Yardımcı GG; Chakraborty A; Bann DV; Wang Y; Clark R; Zhang L; Yang H; Liu T; Iyyanki S; An L; Pool C; Sasaki T; Rivera-Mulia JC; Ozadam H; Lajoie BR; Kaul R; Buckley M; Lee K; Diegel M; Pezic D; Ernst C; Hadjur S; Odom DT; Stamatoyannopoulos JA; Broach JR; Hardison RC; Ay F; Noble WS; Dekker J; Gilbert DM; Yue F
Nat Genet; 2018 Oct; 50(10):1388-1398. PubMed ID: 30202056
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. PhenoSV: interpretable phenotype-aware model for the prioritization of genes affected by structural variants.
Xu Z; Li Q; Marchionni L; Wang K
Nat Commun; 2023 Nov; 14(1):7805. PubMed ID: 38016949
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 3D-GNOME 2.0: a three-dimensional genome modeling engine for predicting structural variation-driven alterations of chromatin spatial structure in the human genome.
Wlasnowolski M; Sadowski M; Czarnota T; Jodkowska K; Szalaj P; Tang Z; Ruan Y; Plewczynski D
Nucleic Acids Res; 2020 Jul; 48(W1):W170-W176. PubMed ID: 32442297
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Structural Variation in Cancer: Role, Prevalence, and Mechanisms.
Cosenza MR; Rodriguez-Martin B; Korbel JO
Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet; 2022 Aug; 23():123-152. PubMed ID: 35655332
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Identification of coding and non-coding mutational hotspots in cancer genomes.
Piraino SW; Furney SJ
BMC Genomics; 2017 Jan; 18(1):17. PubMed ID: 28056774
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Allele-Specific Quantification of Structural Variations in Cancer Genomes.
Li Y; Zhou S; Schwartz DC; Ma J
Cell Syst; 2016 Jul; 3(1):21-34. PubMed ID: 27453446
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Structural variation in the chicken genome identified by paired-end next-generation DNA sequencing of reduced representation libraries.
Kerstens HH; Crooijmans RP; Dibbits BW; Vereijken A; Okimoto R; Groenen MA
BMC Genomics; 2011 Feb; 12():94. PubMed ID: 21291514
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Global analysis of somatic structural genomic alterations and their impact on gene expression in diverse human cancers.
Alaei-Mahabadi B; Bhadury J; Karlsson JW; Nilsson JA; Larsson E
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2016 Nov; 113(48):13768-13773. PubMed ID: 27856756
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Toward Recovering Allele-specific Cancer Genome Graphs.
Rajaraman A; Ma J
J Comput Biol; 2018 Jul; 25(7):624-636. PubMed ID: 29658776
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Somatic structural variant formation is guided by and influences genome architecture.
Sidiropoulos N; Mardin BR; Rodríguez-González FG; Bochkov ID; Garg S; Stütz AM; Korbel JO; Aiden EL; Weischenfeldt J
Genome Res; 2022 Apr; 32(4):643-655. PubMed ID: 35177558
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Local sequence assembly reveals a high-resolution profile of somatic structural variations in 97 cancer genomes.
Zhuang J; Weng Z
Nucleic Acids Res; 2015 Sep; 43(17):8146-56. PubMed ID: 26283183
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. svclassify: a method to establish benchmark structural variant calls.
Parikh H; Mohiyuddin M; Lam HY; Iyer H; Chen D; Pratt M; Bartha G; Spies N; Losert W; Zook JM; Salit M
BMC Genomics; 2016 Jan; 17():64. PubMed ID: 26772178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
