Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Reply to ‘Currently available bulk sequencing data do not necessarily support a model of neutral tumor evolution’

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Sensitivity of the 1/f test to subclone cancer cell fraction.

References

  1. 1.

    McDonald, T. O., Chakrabarti, S. & Michor, F. Nat. Genet. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0217-6 (2018).

  2. 2.

    Williams, M. J., Werner, B., Barnes, C. P., Graham, T. A. & Sottoriva, A. Nat. Genet. 48, 238–244 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Gerlinger, M. et al. N. Engl. J. Med. 366, 883–892 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Ding, L. et al. Nature 481, 506–510 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Donnelly, P. & Tavaré, S. Annu. Rev. Genet. 29, 401–421 (1995).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Griffiths, R. C. & Tavaré, S. Stoch. Models 14, 273–295 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Durrett, R. Ann. Appl. Probab. 23, 230–250 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Donnelly, P. & Tavaré, S. Annu. Rev. Genet. 29, 401–421 (1995).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Beerenwinkel, N. et al. PLoS Comput. Biol. 3, e225 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Bozic, I. et al. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107, 18545–18550 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Kessler, D. A. & Levine, H. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 11682–11687 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Kessler, D. A. & Levine, H. J. Stat. Phys. 158, 783–805 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Wu, C.-I., Wang, H.-Y., Ling, S. & Lu, X. Annu. Rev. Genet. 50, 347–369 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Niida, A., Iwasaki, W. M., Innan, H. & Kumar, S. Mol. Biol. Evol. 76, 5605 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Cannataro, V. L. & Townsend, J. P. Mol. Biol. Evol. 47, 1402 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Sun, R. et al. Nat. Genet. 49, 1015–1024 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Williams, M. J. et al. Nat. Genet. 50, 895–903 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Vogelstein, B. et al. Science 339, 1546–1558 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Stratton, M. R., Campbell, P. J. & Futreal, P. A. Nature 458, 719–724 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Nik-Zainal, S. et al. Cell 149, 994–1007 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Griffith, M. et al. Cell Syst. 1, 210–223 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Orr, H. A. Nat. Rev. Genet. 10, 531–539 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Lipinski, K. A. et al. Trends Cancer 2, 49–63 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Gao, R. et al. Nat. Genet. 48, 1119–1130 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

A.S. is supported by the Chris Rokos Fellowship in Evolution and Cancer and by Cancer Research UK (A22909). T.A.G. is supported by Cancer Research UK (A19771). C.P.B. is supported by the Wellcome Trust (097319/Z/11/Z). B.W. is supported by the Geoffrey W. Lewis Post-Doctoral Training fellowship. A.S. and T.A.G. are jointly supported by the Wellcome Trust (202778/B/16/Z and 202778/Z/16/Z, respectively). This work was also supported by Wellcome Trust funding to the Centre for Evolution and Cancer (105104/Z/14/Z).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

B.W. performed mathematical analysis. M.J.W. performed simulation analysis. All authors participated in the discussion, conceived and designed the response, and wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea Sottoriva.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Werner, B., Williams, M.J., Barnes, C.P. et al. Reply to ‘Currently available bulk sequencing data do not necessarily support a model of neutral tumor evolution’. Nat Genet 50, 1624–1626 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0235-4

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing