Skip to main content

Cancer Breakpoint Hotspots Versus Individual Breakpoints Prediction by Machine Learning Models

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Bioinformatics Research and Applications (ISBRA 2020)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNBI,volume 12304))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 870 Accesses

Abstract

Genome rearrangement is a hallmark of all cancers. Cancer breakpoint prediction appeared to be a difficult task, and various machine learning models did not achieve high prediction power. We investigated the power of machine learning models to predict breakpoint hotspots selected with different density thresholds and also compared prediction of hotspots versus individual breakpoints. We found that hotspots are considerably better predicted than individual breakpoints. While choosing a selection criterion, the test ROC AUC only is not enough to choose the best model, the lift of recall and lift of precision should be taken into consideration. Investigation of the lift of recall and lift of precision showed that it is impossible to select one criterion of hotspot selection for all cancer types but there are three to four distinct groups of cancer with similar properties. Overall the presented results point to the necessity to choose different hotspots selection criteria for different types of cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Harewood, L., et al.: Hi-C as a tool for precise detection and characterisation of chromosomal rearrangements and copy number variation in human tumours. Genome Biol. 18, 125 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Nakagawa, H., Fujita, M.: Whole genome sequencing analysis for cancer genomics and precision medicine. Cancer Sci. 109, 513–522 (2018)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Nakagawa, H., Wardell, C.P., Furuta, M., Taniguchi, H., Fujimoto, A.: Cancer whole-genome sequencing: present and future. Oncogene 34, 5943–5950 (2015)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Salk, J.J., Fox, E.J., Loeb, L.A.: Mutational heterogeneity in human cancers: origin and consequences. Annu. Rev. Pathol. 5, 51–75 (2010)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Vogelstein, B., Papadopoulos, N., Velculescu, V.E., Zhou, S., Diaz Jr., L.A., Kinzler, K.W.: Cancer genome landscapes. Science 339, 1546–1558 (2013)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC). https://icgc.org/

  7. Zhang, K., Wang, H.: Cancer genome atlas pan-cancer analysis project. Zhongguo Fei Ai Za Zhi 18, 219–223 (2015)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cancer Genome Atlas Research, N., et al.: The cancer genome atlas pan-cancer analysis project. Nat. Genet. 45, 1113–1120 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Pancancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG). https://dcc.icgc.org/pcawg

  10. The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). https://www.cancer.gov/about-nci/organization/ccg/research/structural-genomics/tcga

  11. Consortium, I.T.P.-C.A.o.W.G.: Pan-cancer analysis of whole genomes. Nature 578, 82–93 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Javadekar, S.M., Raghavan, S.C.: Snaps and mends: DNA breaks and chromosomal translocations. FEBS J. 282, 2627–2645 (2015)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Li, Y., et al.: Patterns of somatic structural variation in human cancer genomes. Nature 578, 112–121 (2020)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Polak, P., et al.: Cell-of-origin chromatin organization shapes the mutational landscape of cancer. Nature 518, 360–364 (2015)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Georgakopoulos-Soares, I., Morganella, S., Jain, N., Hemberg, M., Nik-Zainal, S.: Noncanonical secondary structures arising from non-B DNA motifs are determinants of mutagenesis. Genome Res. 28, 1264–1271 (2018)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Cheloshkina, K., Poptsova, M.: Tissue-specific impact of stem-loops and quadruplexes on cancer breakpoints formation. BMC Cancer 19, 434 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Poptsova .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Cheloshkina, K., Bzhikhatlov, I., Poptsova, M. (2020). Cancer Breakpoint Hotspots Versus Individual Breakpoints Prediction by Machine Learning Models. In: Cai, Z., Mandoiu, I., Narasimhan, G., Skums, P., Guo, X. (eds) Bioinformatics Research and Applications. ISBRA 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12304. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57821-3_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57821-3_19

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-57820-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-57821-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics