| Literature DB >> 26350498 |
Yi Fu1, Guoqiang Yu1, Douglas A Levine2, Niya Wang1, Ie-Ming Shih3, Zhen Zhang3, Robert Clarke4, Yue Wang1.
Abstract
Most published copy number datasets on solid tumors were obtained from specimens comprised of mixed cell populations, for which the varying tumor-stroma proportions are unknown or unreported. The inability to correct for signal mixing represents a major limitation on the use of these datasets for subsequent analyses, such as discerning deletion types or detecting driver aberrations. We describe the BACOM2.0 method with enhanced accuracy and functionality to normalize copy number signals, detect deletion types, estimate tumor purity, quantify true copy numbers, and calculate average-ploidy value. While BACOM has been validated and used with promising results, subsequent BACOM analysis of the TCGA ovarian cancer dataset found that the estimated average tumor purity was lower than expected. In this report, we first show that this lowered estimate of tumor purity is the combined result of imprecise signal normalization and parameter estimation. Then, we describe effective allele-specific absolute normalization and quantification methods that can enhance BACOM applications in many biological contexts while in the presence of various confounders. Finally, we discuss the advantages of BACOM in relation to alternative approaches. Here we detail this revised computational approach, BACOM2.0, and validate its performance in real and simulated datasets.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26350498 PMCID: PMC4563570 DOI: 10.1038/srep13955
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Realistic simulated allelic-specific copy number signals.
Figure 2(a) Histogram of simulated copy number signals; (b) Histogram of preprocessed copy number signals after moving-average; (c) ‘revised’ histogram of copy numbers after eliminating allelic-imbalanced regions.
Comparative parameter estimates by BACOM and BACOM 2.0.
| −0.042 | −0.714 | −0.063 | |
| 40% | 79% | 39% |
Figure 3Analysis by BACOM2.0 on the real TCGA ovarian cancer samples.
(a) Histogram of copy number signals after moving-average operation; (b) Histogram of ‘revised’ copy number signals after eliminating allelic-imbalanced loci; (c) Histogram of the overall tumor purities estimated by original BACOM from 466 OV samples; (d) histogram of the overall tumor purities estimated by BACOM2.0 from 466 OV samples.
Figure 4Sample-wise comparison between the estimates of tumor purity and average ploidy by BACOM2.0 and ABSOLUTE on 392 TCGA ovarian cancer samples.
(a) Scatter plot of tumor purity estimates; (b) Scatter plot of tumor ploidy estimates.
Figure 5(a) Sample-wise correlation between tumor purity estimated by BACOM2.0 using copy number data and by UNDO using protein expression data; and (b) Sample-wise correlation between tumor purity estimated by BACOM2.0 using copy number data and by UNDO using gene expression data; (c) Histograms of the tumor purity estimates by UNDO using gene expression data, by BACOM2.0 using copy number data, and ABSOLUTE using copy number data; on the same TCGA_OV samples.
Figure 6Analytic pipeline of BACOM2.0: schematic flowchart.