Prediction of cancer driver genes and mutations: the potential of integrative computational frameworks
AI-generated Key Points
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.
- The field of cancer research has been revolutionized by the vast amount of sequencing data available
- Predictive tools have been proposed to compare and prioritize driver genes and mutations, but there is little consensus on the computational approach or a golden standard for comparison
- Benchmarking these tools depends highly on input data, indicating that overfitting remains a significant problem
- One solution is to limit the scope and usage of specific tools, but this forces researchers to walk a tightrope between creating high-quality tools for specific purposes and describing the complex alterations driving cancer
- Many bioinformatic pipelines rely on single nucleotide variants or alterations in isolation without accounting for cellular compartmentalization, mutational burden, or disease progression
- Silo-research risks overlooking potential synergies or breakthroughs within bioinformatics and computational cancer biology fields
- An overview of databases and datasets for building or testing predictive tools for discovering cancer drivers is provided, including introducing predictive tools for driver genes, driver mutations, and their impact based on structural analysis
- The authors suggest moving towards integrative frameworks to avoid silo-research that consider multiple factors such as cellular compartmentalization and disease progression when analyzing genetic alterations in cancer cells
- By doing so, researchers can develop more accurate predictive models that consider the complexity of cancer biology
- Collaboration across different research fields is needed to advance our understanding of cancer genetics and develop effective treatments.
Authors: Mona Nourbakhsh (Cancer Systems Biology, Section for Bioinformatics, Department of Health and Technology, Technical University of Denmark, 2800, Lyngby, Denmark), Kristine Degn (Cancer Systems Biology, Section for Bioinformatics, Department of Health and Technology, Technical University of Denmark, 2800, Lyngby, Denmark), Astrid Saksager (Cancer Systems Biology, Section for Bioinformatics, Department of Health and Technology, Technical University of Denmark, 2800, Lyngby, Denmark), Matteo Tiberti (Cancer Structural Biology, Danish Cancer Society Research Center, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark), Elena Papaleo (Cancer Systems Biology, Section for Bioinformatics, Department of Health and Technology, Technical University of Denmark, 2800, Lyngby, Denmark)
Abstract: The vast amount of sequencing data presently available allow the scientific community to explore a range of genetic variables that may drive and progress cancer. A myriad of predictive tools has been proposed, allowing researchers and clinicians to compare and prioritize driver genes and mutations and their relative pathogenicity. However, there is little consensus on the computational approach or a golden standard for comparison. Hence, benchmarking the different tools depends highly on the input data, indicating that overfitting is still a massive problem. One of the solutions is to limit the scope and usage of specific tool. However, such limitations forces researchers to walk on a tightrope between creating and using high-quality tools for a specific purpose and describing the complex alterations driving cancer. While the knowledge of cancer development increases every day, many bioinformatic pipelines rely on single nucleotide variants or alterations in a vacuum without accounting for cellular compartment, mutational burden, or disease progression. Even within bioinformatics and computational cancer biology, the research fields work in silos, risking overlooking potential synergies or breakthroughs. Here, we provide an overview of databases and datasets for building or testing predictive tools for discovery of cancer drivers. We introduce predictive tools for driver genes, driver mutations, and the impact of these based on structural analysis. Additionally, we suggest and recommend directions in the field to avoid silo-research, moving in the direction of integrative frameworks.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
Score: 0
Why do we need votes?
Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.
The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.
⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through a
tree representationLook for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.