Question: How many samples are good to find significant targets using GISTIC?
gravatar for joyk2a
12 weeks ago by
joyk2a30 wrote:

Hi, I am analyzing around thirty tumor samples. Do you think this size is good to analyze targets with GISTIC? The most of journals I have read report more than 100 samples. I am wondering whether I can find valuable targets within small size cohorts. It will be great if you share your experiences who had analyzed GISTIC or similar analysis program. Thanks alot!

gene • 150 views
ADD COMMENTlink modified 12 weeks ago • written 12 weeks ago by joyk2a30
gravatar for Kevin Blighe
12 weeks ago by
Kevin Blighe61k
Kevin Blighe61k wrote:

It is a little low, which may translate as not many regions being statistically significant. However, I would encourage you to try it. You could justify reducing the p-value threshold for the identified recurrent regions, keeping in mind that the relatively low sample n is always a limitation.


ADD COMMENTlink written 12 weeks ago by Kevin Blighe61k

Thanks, Kevin! I will try to do it.

ADD REPLYlink written 12 weeks ago by joyk2a30


How does GISTIC depend on number of samples being analyzed? I have a lot of samples, but I had to split them into batches to run CopywriteR, which is computationally expensive otherwise. I ran GISTIC2.0 on the output from each of these batches.

It is not possible to combine CopywriteR output across batches, so I cannot run GISTIC2.0 on some sort of combined input. Will this be a problem?

ADD REPLYlink written 5 days ago by RamRS27k

It's because GISTIC is a bit different from any standard copy number analysis tool. GISTIC takes, as input, the already-derived per sample CN segments, and then processes all samples combined in order to 'score' copy number events across the entire cohort. In a way, it's doing the same as GAIA, i.e., looking for recurrently-aberrated regions. So, with a low number of samples, it would be difficult for any region to obtain a reliable score. I have used GAIA more than GISTIC, though.

Im not too familiar with CopywriteR, to be honest

ADD REPLYlink written 5 days ago by Kevin Blighe61k

Looks like I'm going to have to re-analyze my data. CopywriteR is an R package that generates per-sample CN segments from BAM files. It is computationally expensive (>100GB RAM for 3 samples), so I had to split my samples into batches of 3 each. I'm guessing that cripples GISTIC2.0, because n=3 is nothing in the context of statistical significance.

EDIT: It looks like sample size does not affect gene level scoring in GISTIC2, which is what I'm after. I don't have to re-run all my samples, which is great news for me!

ADD REPLYlink modified 2 days ago • written 5 days ago by RamRS27k

Hi Kevin, I have a similar question. But in my study, I have a tumor sample size of 15. Do you think that I should use Gistic tool or is there any other way to represent the significance? and How I can apply something threshold for gain or loss explained at Cosmic website. You have any idea, I would be very grateful to you.

ADD REPLYlink modified 3 days ago • written 3 days ago by thind.amarinder20

GAIA is better than GISTIC in terms of ease of use. I would use GAIA.

ADD REPLYlink written 2 days ago by Kevin Blighe61k
Please log in to add an answer.


Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
Powered by Biostar version 2.3.0
Traffic: 1015 users visited in the last hour