Sarah Sandmann1, Silja Richter2, Xiaoyi Jiang3, Julian Varghese2. 1. Institute of Medical Informatics, University of Münster, Münster, Germany; sarah.sandmann@uni-muenster.de. 2. Institute of Medical Informatics, University of Münster, Münster, Germany. 3. Department of Computer Science, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: In the field of cancer research, reconstructing clonal evolution is of major interest. The technique provides new insights for analysis and prediction of tumor development. However, reconstruction based on mutational data is characterized by several challenges. MATERIALS AND METHODS: By performing extensive literature research, we identified 51 currently available tools for reconstructing clonal evolution. By analyzing two cancer data sets (n=21), we investigated the applicability and performance of each tool. RESULTS: Seventeen out of 51 tools could be applied to our data. Correct clustering of variants can be observed for 4 patients in the presence of ≤3 clusters and ≥5 time points. Correct phylogenetic trees are determined for 10 patients. Accurate visualization is possible, by applying adjustments to the original algorithms. CONCLUSION: Despite bearing considerable potential, automatic reconstruction of clonal evolution remains challenging. To replace tedious manual reconstruction, further research including systematic error analyses using simulation tools needs to be conducted.
BACKGROUND/AIM: In the field of cancer research, reconstructing clonal evolution is of major interest. The technique provides new insights for analysis and prediction of tumor development. However, reconstruction based on mutational data is characterized by several challenges. MATERIALS AND METHODS: By performing extensive literature research, we identified 51 currently available tools for reconstructing clonal evolution. By analyzing two cancer data sets (n=21), we investigated the applicability and performance of each tool. RESULTS: Seventeen out of 51 tools could be applied to our data. Correct clustering of variants can be observed for 4 patients in the presence of ≤3 clusters and ≥5 time points. Correct phylogenetic trees are determined for 10 patients. Accurate visualization is possible, by applying adjustments to the original algorithms. CONCLUSION: Despite bearing considerable potential, automatic reconstruction of clonal evolution remains challenging. To replace tedious manual reconstruction, further research including systematic error analyses using simulation tools needs to be conducted.
Authors: Sietse M Aukema; Markus Kreuz; Christian W Kohler; Maciej Rosolowski; Dirk Hasenclever; Michael Hummel; Ralf Küppers; Dido Lenze; German Ott; Christiane Pott; Julia Richter; Andreas Rosenwald; Monika Szczepanowski; Carsten Schwaenen; Harald Stein; Heiko Trautmann; Swen Wessendorf; Lorenz Trümper; Markus Loeffler; Rainer Spang; Philip M Kluin; Wolfram Klapper; Reiner Siebert Journal: Haematologica Date: 2013-10-31 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: Sarah Sandmann; Marius Wöste; Aniek O de Graaf; Birgit Burkhardt; Joop H Jansen; Martin Dugas Journal: Gigascience Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 6.524
Authors: Pedro da Silva-Coelho; Leonie I Kroeze; Kenichi Yoshida; Theresia N Koorenhof-Scheele; Ruth Knops; Louis T van de Locht; Aniek O de Graaf; Marion Massop; Sarah Sandmann; Martin Dugas; Marian J Stevens-Kroef; Jaroslav Cermak; Yuichi Shiraishi; Kenichi Chiba; Hiroko Tanaka; Satoru Miyano; Theo de Witte; Nicole M A Blijlevens; Petra Muus; Gerwin Huls; Bert A van der Reijden; Seishi Ogawa; Joop H Jansen Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2017-04-21 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Sarah Sandmann; Aniek O de Graaf; Mohsen Karimi; Bert A van der Reijden; Eva Hellström-Lindberg; Joop H Jansen; Martin Dugas Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-02-24 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: T Haferlach; Y Nagata; V Grossmann; Y Okuno; U Bacher; G Nagae; S Schnittger; M Sanada; A Kon; T Alpermann; K Yoshida; A Roller; N Nadarajah; Y Shiraishi; Y Shiozawa; K Chiba; H Tanaka; H P Koeffler; H-U Klein; M Dugas; H Aburatani; A Kohlmann; S Miyano; C Haferlach; W Kern; S Ogawa Journal: Leukemia Date: 2013-11-13 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: Christopher A Miller; Joshua McMichael; Ha X Dang; Christopher A Maher; Li Ding; Timothy J Ley; Elaine R Mardis; Richard K Wilson Journal: BMC Genomics Date: 2016-11-07 Impact factor: 3.969