IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0041815.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Calling Sample Mix-Ups in Cancer Population Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Andy G Lynch
  • Suet-Feung Chin
  • Mark J Dunning
  • Carlos Caldas
  • Simon Tavaré
  • Christina Curtis

Abstract

Sample tracking errors have been and always will be a part of the practical implementation of large experiments. It has recently been proposed that expression quantitative trait loci (eQTLs) and their associated effects could be used to identify sample mix-ups and this approach has been applied to a number of large population genomics studies to illustrate the prevalence of the problem. We had adopted a similar approach, termed ‘BADGER’, in the METABRIC project. METABRIC is a large breast cancer study that may have been the first in which eQTL-based detection of mismatches was used during the study, rather than after the event, to aid quality assurance. We report here on the particular issues associated with large cancer studies performed using historical samples, which complicate the interpretation of such approaches. In particular we identify the complications of using tumour samples, of considering cellularity and RNA quality, of distinct subgroups existing in the study population (including family structures), and of choosing eQTLs to use. We also present some results regarding the design of experiments given consideration of these matters. The eQTL-based approach to identifying sample tracking errors is seen to be of value to these studies, but requiring care in its implementation.

Suggested Citation

  • Andy G Lynch & Suet-Feung Chin & Mark J Dunning & Carlos Caldas & Simon Tavaré & Christina Curtis, 2012. "Calling Sample Mix-Ups in Cancer Population Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(8), pages 1-12, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0041815
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0041815
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0041815
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0041815&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0041815?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0041815. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.