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).

  3. 3.

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

  4. 4.

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

  5. 5.

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

  6. 6.

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

  7. 7.

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

  8. 8.

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

  9. 9.

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

  10. 10.

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

  11. 11.

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

  12. 12.

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

  13. 13.

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

  14. 14.

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

  15. 15.

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

  16. 16.

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

  17. 17.

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

  18. 18.

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

  19. 19.

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

  20. 20.

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

  21. 21.

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

  22. 22.

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

  23. 23.

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

  24. 24.

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

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