Review



research whole exome sequencing deep coverage pipeline  (Broad Institute Inc)

 
  • Logo
  • About
  • News
  • Press Release
  • Team
  • Advisors
  • Partners
  • Contact
  • Bioz Stars
  • Bioz vStars
    • 90
      Buy from Supplier

    Structured Review

    Broad Institute Inc research whole exome sequencing deep coverage pipeline
    Research Whole Exome Sequencing Deep Coverage Pipeline, supplied by Broad Institute Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/research+whole+exome+sequencing+deep+coverage+pipeline/pm29109393-145-13-9?v=Broad+Institute+Inc
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    research whole exome sequencing deep coverage pipeline - by Bioz Stars, 2026-08
    90/100 stars

    Images



    Similar Products

    research whole exome sequencing deep coverage pipeline  (Broad Clinical Labs)
    95
    Broad Clinical Labs research whole exome sequencing deep coverage pipeline
    Fig. 2 Comparison of <t>whole-exome</t> <t>sequencing</t> of cfDNA to whole-exome sequencing of matched tumor biopsies. a Fraction of clonal (≥0.9 cancer cell fraction, CCF) and subclonal (<0.9 CCF) SSNVs detected by MuTect in WES of tumor biopsies and confirmed (i.e., supported by ≥3 variant reads) in WES of cfDNA. Sites with <3 reads that had power <0.9 for mutation calling were not included when computing the fraction of SNVs confirmed (“Methods”). b Fraction of clonal and subclonal SSNVs detected in WES of cfDNA and confirmed in WES of tumor biopsies. For 18 patients with WES of cfDNA at a second time point t2, SSNVs not detected in the matched tumor biopsy but confirmed at t2 are indicated with black. c Analysis of clonal dynamics in an ER+ breast cancer patient diagnosed with metastatic disease 1.5 years (yrs) prior to biopsy and cfDNA collection (t1, Day 0). Clustering analysis of CCF for SSNVs between matched tumor biopsy and cfDNA (t1) is shown in the left panel. The right panel shows the CCF of four mutation clusters, one containing ESR1 L536P (Subclonal Cluster 1, orange) and the other containing ESR1 D538G (Subclonal Cluster 2, light blue), at t1 and t2 (51 days apart) from a patient with ER+ metastatic breast cancer being treated with a SERD. The lymph node biopsy was taken at the same time as cfDNA t1. Mutations were clustered by the CCFs for each pair of samples using Phylogic39 (“Methods”). Error bars represent the 95% credible interval of the joint posterior density of the clusters. Mutations, excluding indels, having ≥90% estimated power based on coverage in both samples are shown; clusters with fewer than three mutations are excluded. The number of mutations in each cluster is indicated in the legend in parentheses
    Research Whole Exome Sequencing Deep Coverage Pipeline, supplied by Broad Clinical Labs, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 95/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/research+whole+exome+sequencing+deep+coverage+pipeline/pm29109393-145-13-20?v=Broad+Clinical+Labs
    Average 95 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    research whole exome sequencing deep coverage pipeline - by Bioz Stars, 2026-08
    95/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier
    research whole exome sequencing deep coverage pipeline  (Broad Institute Inc)
    90
    Broad Institute Inc research whole exome sequencing deep coverage pipeline
    Fig. 2 Comparison of <t>whole-exome</t> <t>sequencing</t> of cfDNA to whole-exome sequencing of matched tumor biopsies. a Fraction of clonal (≥0.9 cancer cell fraction, CCF) and subclonal (<0.9 CCF) SSNVs detected by MuTect in WES of tumor biopsies and confirmed (i.e., supported by ≥3 variant reads) in WES of cfDNA. Sites with <3 reads that had power <0.9 for mutation calling were not included when computing the fraction of SNVs confirmed (“Methods”). b Fraction of clonal and subclonal SSNVs detected in WES of cfDNA and confirmed in WES of tumor biopsies. For 18 patients with WES of cfDNA at a second time point t2, SSNVs not detected in the matched tumor biopsy but confirmed at t2 are indicated with black. c Analysis of clonal dynamics in an ER+ breast cancer patient diagnosed with metastatic disease 1.5 years (yrs) prior to biopsy and cfDNA collection (t1, Day 0). Clustering analysis of CCF for SSNVs between matched tumor biopsy and cfDNA (t1) is shown in the left panel. The right panel shows the CCF of four mutation clusters, one containing ESR1 L536P (Subclonal Cluster 1, orange) and the other containing ESR1 D538G (Subclonal Cluster 2, light blue), at t1 and t2 (51 days apart) from a patient with ER+ metastatic breast cancer being treated with a SERD. The lymph node biopsy was taken at the same time as cfDNA t1. Mutations were clustered by the CCFs for each pair of samples using Phylogic39 (“Methods”). Error bars represent the 95% credible interval of the joint posterior density of the clusters. Mutations, excluding indels, having ≥90% estimated power based on coverage in both samples are shown; clusters with fewer than three mutations are excluded. The number of mutations in each cluster is indicated in the legend in parentheses
    Research Whole Exome Sequencing Deep Coverage Pipeline, supplied by Broad Institute Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/research+whole+exome+sequencing+deep+coverage+pipeline/pm29109393-145-13-9?v=Broad+Institute+Inc
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    research whole exome sequencing deep coverage pipeline - by Bioz Stars, 2026-08
    90/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier

    Image Search Results


    Fig. 2 Comparison of whole-exome sequencing of cfDNA to whole-exome sequencing of matched tumor biopsies. a Fraction of clonal (≥0.9 cancer cell fraction, CCF) and subclonal (<0.9 CCF) SSNVs detected by MuTect in WES of tumor biopsies and confirmed (i.e., supported by ≥3 variant reads) in WES of cfDNA. Sites with <3 reads that had power <0.9 for mutation calling were not included when computing the fraction of SNVs confirmed (“Methods”). b Fraction of clonal and subclonal SSNVs detected in WES of cfDNA and confirmed in WES of tumor biopsies. For 18 patients with WES of cfDNA at a second time point t2, SSNVs not detected in the matched tumor biopsy but confirmed at t2 are indicated with black. c Analysis of clonal dynamics in an ER+ breast cancer patient diagnosed with metastatic disease 1.5 years (yrs) prior to biopsy and cfDNA collection (t1, Day 0). Clustering analysis of CCF for SSNVs between matched tumor biopsy and cfDNA (t1) is shown in the left panel. The right panel shows the CCF of four mutation clusters, one containing ESR1 L536P (Subclonal Cluster 1, orange) and the other containing ESR1 D538G (Subclonal Cluster 2, light blue), at t1 and t2 (51 days apart) from a patient with ER+ metastatic breast cancer being treated with a SERD. The lymph node biopsy was taken at the same time as cfDNA t1. Mutations were clustered by the CCFs for each pair of samples using Phylogic39 (“Methods”). Error bars represent the 95% credible interval of the joint posterior density of the clusters. Mutations, excluding indels, having ≥90% estimated power based on coverage in both samples are shown; clusters with fewer than three mutations are excluded. The number of mutations in each cluster is indicated in the legend in parentheses

    Journal: Nature communications

    Article Title: Scalable whole-exome sequencing of cell-free DNA reveals high concordance with metastatic tumors.

    doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-00965-y

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Fig. 2 Comparison of whole-exome sequencing of cfDNA to whole-exome sequencing of matched tumor biopsies. a Fraction of clonal (≥0.9 cancer cell fraction, CCF) and subclonal (<0.9 CCF) SSNVs detected by MuTect in WES of tumor biopsies and confirmed (i.e., supported by ≥3 variant reads) in WES of cfDNA. Sites with <3 reads that had power <0.9 for mutation calling were not included when computing the fraction of SNVs confirmed (“Methods”). b Fraction of clonal and subclonal SSNVs detected in WES of cfDNA and confirmed in WES of tumor biopsies. For 18 patients with WES of cfDNA at a second time point t2, SSNVs not detected in the matched tumor biopsy but confirmed at t2 are indicated with black. c Analysis of clonal dynamics in an ER+ breast cancer patient diagnosed with metastatic disease 1.5 years (yrs) prior to biopsy and cfDNA collection (t1, Day 0). Clustering analysis of CCF for SSNVs between matched tumor biopsy and cfDNA (t1) is shown in the left panel. The right panel shows the CCF of four mutation clusters, one containing ESR1 L536P (Subclonal Cluster 1, orange) and the other containing ESR1 D538G (Subclonal Cluster 2, light blue), at t1 and t2 (51 days apart) from a patient with ER+ metastatic breast cancer being treated with a SERD. The lymph node biopsy was taken at the same time as cfDNA t1. Mutations were clustered by the CCFs for each pair of samples using Phylogic39 (“Methods”). Error bars represent the 95% credible interval of the joint posterior density of the clusters. Mutations, excluding indels, having ≥90% estimated power based on coverage in both samples are shown; clusters with fewer than three mutations are excluded. The number of mutations in each cluster is indicated in the legend in parentheses

    Article Snippet: Matched tumor biopsies were processed and sequenced through the Broad Institute Genomics Platform’s Research Whole Exome Sequencing deep coverage pipeline (http://genomics.broadinstitute.org/data-sheets/DTS_WES_1Page_52016_0.pdf).

    Techniques: Comparison, Sequencing, Variant Assay, Mutagenesis