Letters

This Week's Letters

+ See all authors and affiliations

Science  14 Sep 2007:
Vol. 317, Issue 5844, pp. 1496a
DOI: 10.1126/science.317.5844.1496a

Why Do Team-Authored Papers Get Cited More?

Jose M. Valderas; R. Alexander Bentley; Ralf Buckley; K. Brad Wray; Response Stefan Wuchty, Benjamin F. Jones, Brian Uzzi

Coral Reefs Still in Danger from Tourism Head

Rick MacPherson

Technical Comment Abstracts

Technical Comment Abstracts

COMMENT ON “The Consensus Coding Sequences of Human Breast and Colorectal Cancers”

William F. Forrest and Guy Cavet

Abstract: Sjöblom et al. (Research Article, 13 October 2006, p. 268) used data from cancer genome resequencing to identify genes with elevated mutation rates. Their analysis used point probabilities when it should have used P values for the hypotheses they intended to test. Reimplementing their analysis method with exact P values results in far fewer genes with mutation rates that achieve statistical significance.

Full text at www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5844/1500a

COMMENT ON “The Consensus Coding Sequences of Human Breast and Colorectal Cancers”

Gad Getz, Holger Höfling, Jill P. Mesirov, Todd R. Golub, Matthew Meyerson, Robert Tibshirani, Eric S. Lander

Abstract: Sjöblom et al. (Research Article, 13 October 2006, p. 268) reported nearly 200 novel cancer genes said to have a 90% probability of being involved in colon or breast cancer. However, their analysis raises two statistical concerns. When these concerns are addressed, few genes with significantly elevated mutation rates remain. Although the biological methodology in Sjöblom et al. is sound, more samples are needed to achieve sufficient power.

Full text at www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5844/1500b

COMMENT ON “The Consensus Coding Sequences of Human Breast and Colorectal Cancers”

Alan F. Rubin and Phil Green

Abstract: Sjöblom et al. (Research Article, 13 October 2006, p. 268) reported many new genes with an apparent significant excess of mutations in breast and colorectal cancer. Reanalysis of their data with more appropriate statistical methods and background mutation rate assumptions reveals that few if any of these genes have significantly elevated mutation rates.

Full text at www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5844/1500c

RESPONSE TO COMMENT ON “The Consensus Coding Sequences of Human Breast and Colorectal Cancers”

Giovanni Parmigiani, Jimmy Lin, Simina M. Boca, Tobias Sjöblom, Siân Jones, Laura D. Wood, D. Williams Parsons, Thomas Barber, Phillip Buckhaults, Sanford D. Markowitz, Ben Ho Park, Kurtis E. Bachman, Nickolas Papadopoulos, Bert Vogelstein, Kenneth W. Kinzler, Victor E. Velculescu

Abstract: Forrest and Cavet, Getz et al., and Rubin and Green describe a variety of statistical methods to analyze the mutational data published in Sjöblom et al. However, their conclusions are inaccurate because they are based on analyses that do not fully take into account the experimental design and other critical features of our study. When these factors are incorporated, their methods provide estimates similar to those we reported and support the conclusion that a large number of genes are mutated at rates greater than the passenger mutation rate.

Full text at www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5844/1500d

Related Content

Navigate This Article