Entering edit mode
4.1 years ago
zizigolu
★
4.3k
Hi
I am tracking a gene in GISTIC from my analysis and a paper on the the cancer and basically the same raw data, but I am seeing some genes like KRAS, ERBB2, etc location on peaks are different in my GISTIC output and that paper
For instance in my data
KRAS chr12:25340002-26090000 12p12.1
In the paper
12p11.23 chr12:22440282-27280000
my -ta
and -td
in GISTIC has been 0.5
Actually I don't know how to explain this
Can you help me?
Thank you I hope you are safe and good Sorry that was my typo My confusion is; what in GISTIC define the boundaries? I mean KRAS in my data and that paper located on different peaks
It is difficult to say... there are many factors to consider, but mainly the marker density. Are you sure that you have processed the data in the exact same way as the authors?
Actually I have prepared GISTIC input like markers file and segmentation by a script they sent to me
The only thing may differ is -ta and -td threshold for GISTIC
This is more and a month I'm trying different threshold but again I'm seeing non agreement
For instance I'm seeing amplification of an oncogene in responders to chemotherapy promoting cell cycle
This is against biology
Although in RNAseq I am also seeing the up regulation of this cell cycle promoting oncogene in responders to chemotherapy
This is really hard to detect where I'm doing something wrong
So, this relates to here: Explaining relation of WGS and transcriptome ?
It is possible to observe deletion and increased expression at the same time when you consider that these are bulk tumour biopsies; so, different cells have different profiles. The deletion does not have complete penetrance (is not present in all tumour cells), and the increased expression is neither present in all cells.
I think that it will be virtually impossible to perfectly agree with the data of the authors when you consider the fact that program/ package versions have likely changed, and even the source of the data may have changed or been updated. The TCGA data is constantly still being updated.
Thank you At some point yes this post is related to that link
Here my concern was a gene in different peaks and there non agreement of WGS and RNAseq with biology concept
Sorry @Kevin Blighe to be too rude in questioning
By your tutorial I mapped gene symbols to genomic aberration regions and I have some thing like below
My understanding is, minor copy number = 0 means lose of heterozygosity (LOH)
In the attached file I separated samples with minor copy number = 0, So if I am not wrong all these genes here have LOH , be tis seem weird
Can you help me with tuition?
Thanks in advance
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/aqttu6fhteaomnon3msfv/Minor_Copy_number.xlsx?dl=0&rlkey=8xtx9o2lrix25x1m23b64b728
I see... that tutorial is my modified version of a tutorial produced by the TCGAbiolinks people.
A 0 would be full deletion, so, the DNA does not even exist in the sample (?)
Please go back to the start of your project and go 'step by step', analysing the inputs and outputs of each part.
I feel sorry that the TCGA copy number data, specifically, causes so much confusion in the community.
This is difficult while remote, and while I have to do my other work for which I receive payment.
I see, thank you so much