A Mixture Model for Signature Discovery from Sparse Mutation Data

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12074)


Mutational signatures and their exposures are key to understanding the processes that shape cancer genomes with applications to diagnosis and treatment. Yet current signature discovery or refitting approaches are limited to relatively rich mutation data that comes from whole-genome or whole-exome sequencing. Recently, orders of magnitude sparser data sets from gene panel sequencing have become increasingly available in the clinical setting. Such data have typically less than 10 mutations per sample, making them challenging to deal with using current approaches. Here we suggest a novel mixture model for sparse mutation data. In application to synthetic sparse datasets and real gene panel sequences it is shown to outperform current approaches and yield mutational signatures and patient stratifications that are in higher agreement with the literature.


  1. 1.
    Alexandrov, L.B., et al.: Signatures of mutational processes in human cancer. Nature 500(7463), 415–421 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gavande, N.S., et al.: DNA repair targeted therapy: the past or future of cancer treatment? Pharmacol. Ther. 160, 65–83 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davies, H., et al.: HRDetect is a predictor of BRCA1 and BRCA2 deficiency based on mutational signatures. Nat. Med. 23(4), 517–525 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Farmer, H., et al.: Targeting the DNA repair defect in BRCA mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy. Nature 434(7035), 917–921 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fischer, A., et al.: EMu: probabilistic inference of mutational processes and their localization in the cancer genome. Genome Biol. 14(4), 1–10 (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huang, X., Wojtowicz, D., Przytycka, T.M.: Detecting presence of mutational signatures in cancer with confidence. Bioinformatics 34(2), 330–337 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rosenthal, R., et al.: DeconstructSigs: delineating mutational processes in single tumors distinguishes DNA repair deficiencies and patterns of carcinoma evolution. Genome Biol. 17(1), 31 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shiraishi, Y., et al.: A simple model-based approach to inferring and visualizing cancer mutation signatures. PLOS Genet. 11(12), e1005657 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wojtowicz, D., et al.: Hidden Markov models lead to higher resolution maps of mutation signature activity in cancer. Genome Med. 11, 49 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gulhan, D.C., et al.: Detecting the mutational signature of homologous recombination deficiency in clinical samples. Nat. Genet. 51, 912–919 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and Center for Bioinformatics and Computational BiologyUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations