Institution
Broad Institute
Nonprofit•Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States•
About: Broad Institute is a nonprofit organization based out in Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Genome-wide association study. The organization has 6584 authors who have published 11618 publications receiving 1522743 citations. The organization is also known as: Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: A short overview of IGV's variant review features for both single-nucleotide variants and structural variants, with examples from both cancer and germline datasets are presented.
Abstract: Manual review of aligned reads for confirmation and interpretation of variant calls is an important step in many variant calling pipelines for next-generation sequencing (NGS) data. Visual inspection can greatly increase the confidence in calls, reduce the risk of false positives, and help characterize complex events. The Integrative Genomics Viewer (IGV) was one of the first tools to provide NGS data visualization, and it currently provides a rich set of tools for inspection, validation, and interpretation of NGS datasets, as well as other types of genomic data. Here, we present a short overview of IGV9s variant review features for both single-nucleotide variants and structural variants, with examples from both cancer and germline datasets. IGV is freely available at https://www.igv.org. Cancer Res; 77(21); e31–34. ©2017 AACR.
694 citations
••
TL;DR: It was found that higher neoantigen load was positively associated with overall lymphocytic infiltration, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, memory T cells, and CRC-specific survival and positive selection of mutations in HLA genes and other components of the antigen-processing machinery in TIL-rich tumors.
693 citations
••
TL;DR: Together, this study reveals the alteration of WNT, hedgehog, histone methyltransferase and now N-CoR pathways across medulloblastomas and within specific subtypes of this disease, and nominates the RNA helicase DDX3X as a component of pathogenic β-catenin signalling in medullOBlastoma.
Abstract: Medulloblastomas are the most common malignant brain tumours in children. Identifying and understanding the genetic events that drive these tumours is critical for the development of more effective diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic strategies. Recently, our group and others described distinct molecular subtypes of medulloblastoma on the basis of transcriptional and copy number profiles. Here we use whole-exome hybrid capture and deep sequencing to identify somatic mutations across the coding regions of 92 primary medulloblastoma/normal pairs. Overall, medulloblastomas have low mutation rates consistent with other paediatric tumours, with a median of 0.35 non-silent mutations per megabase. We identified twelve genes mutated at statistically significant frequencies, including previously known mutated genes in medulloblastoma such as CTNNB1, PTCH1, MLL2, SMARCA4 and TP53. Recurrent somatic mutations were newly identified in an RNA helicase gene, DDX3X, often concurrent with CTNNB1 mutations, and in the nuclear co-repressor (N-CoR) complex genes GPS2, BCOR and LDB1. We show that mutant DDX3X potentiates transactivation of a TCF promoter and enhances cell viability in combination with mutant, but not wild-type, β-catenin. Together, our study reveals the alteration of WNT, hedgehog, histone methyltransferase and now N-CoR pathways across medulloblastomas and within specific subtypes of this disease, and nominates the RNA helicase DDX3X as a component of pathogenic β-catenin signalling in medulloblastoma.
692 citations
••
Massachusetts Institute of Technology1, California Institute of Technology2, Stanford University3, Harvard University4, Broad Institute5, Duke University6, University of Massachusetts Medical School7, National Institutes of Health8, University of Southern California9, Yale University10, Florida State University11, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory12, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute13, University of California, Santa Cruz14, Princeton University15, University of California, San Diego16, University of Washington17, University of Chicago18, Pennsylvania State University19
TL;DR: The strengths and limitations of biochemical, evolutionary, and genetic approaches for defining functional DNA segments, potential sources for the observed differences in estimated genomic coverage, and the biological implications of these discrepancies are reviewed.
Abstract: With the completion of the human genome sequence, attention turned to identifying and annotating its functional DNA elements. As a complement to genetic and comparative genomics approaches, the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements Project was launched to contribute maps of RNA transcripts, transcriptional regulator binding sites, and chromatin states in many cell types. The resulting genome-wide data reveal sites of biochemical activity with high positional resolution and cell type specificity that facilitate studies of gene regulation and interpretation of noncoding variants associated with human disease. However, the biochemically active regions cover a much larger fraction of the genome than do evolutionarily conserved regions, raising the question of whether nonconserved but biochemically active regions are truly functional. Here, we review the strengths and limitations of biochemical, evolutionary, and genetic approaches for defining functional DNA segments, potential sources for the observed differences in estimated genomic coverage, and the biological implications of these discrepancies. We also analyze the relationship between signal intensity, genomic coverage, and evolutionary conservation. Our results reinforce the principle that each approach provides complementary information and that we need to use combinations of all three to elucidate genome function in human biology and disease.
691 citations
••
University of California, Davis1, Yale University2, Laval University3, Joint Genome Institute4, École normale supérieure de Cachan5, Centre national de la recherche scientifique6, Wayne State University7, University of Georgia8, University of Udine9, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute10, University of California, Santa Cruz11, University of Notre Dame12, European Bioinformatics Institute13, Duke University14, Baylor College of Medicine15, Broad Institute16, University of Washington17, University of Maryland, College Park18, University of California, Berkeley19, University of Lisbon20, Howard Hughes Medical Institute21, University of California, San Francisco22, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory23, Royal Institute of Technology24
TL;DR: The Assemblathon 2 as mentioned in this paper presented a variety of sequence data to be assembled for three vertebrate species (a bird, a fish, and a snake) from 21 participating teams.
Abstract: Background - The process of generating raw genome sequence data continues to become cheaper, faster, and more accurate. However, assembly of such data into high-quality, finished genome sequences remains challenging. Many genome assembly tools are available, but they differ greatly in terms of their performance (speed, scalability, hardware requirements, acceptance of newer read technologies) and in their final output (composition of assembled sequence). More importantly, it remains largely unclear how to best assess the quality of assembled genome sequences. The Assemblathon competitions are intended to assess current state-of-the-art methods in genome assembly. Results - In Assemblathon 2, we provided a variety of sequence data to be assembled for three vertebrate species (a bird, a fish, and snake). This resulted in a total of 43 submitted assemblies from 21 participating teams. We evaluated these assemblies using a combination of optical map data, Fosmid sequences, and several statistical methods. From over 100 different metrics, we chose ten key measures by which to assess the overall quality of the assemblies. Conclusions - Many current genome assemblers produced useful assemblies, containing a significant representation of their genes, regulatory sequences, and overall genome structure. However, the high degree of variability between the entries suggests that there is still much room for improvement in the field of genome assembly and that approaches which work well in assembling the genome of one species may not necessarily work well for another.
690 citations
Authors
Showing all 7146 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Eric S. Lander | 301 | 826 | 525976 |
Albert Hofman | 267 | 2530 | 321405 |
Frank B. Hu | 250 | 1675 | 253464 |
David J. Hunter | 213 | 1836 | 207050 |
Kari Stefansson | 206 | 794 | 174819 |
Mark J. Daly | 204 | 763 | 304452 |
Lewis C. Cantley | 196 | 748 | 169037 |
Matthew Meyerson | 194 | 553 | 243726 |
Gad Getz | 189 | 520 | 247560 |
Stacey Gabriel | 187 | 383 | 294284 |
Stuart H. Orkin | 186 | 715 | 112182 |
Ralph Weissleder | 184 | 1160 | 142508 |
Chris Sander | 178 | 713 | 233287 |
Michael I. Jordan | 176 | 1016 | 216204 |
Richard A. Young | 173 | 520 | 126642 |