@isidrolauscher.bsky.social
230 followers 510 following 35 posts
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Reposted
francescoiorio.bsky.social
📢 The 2nd European Cancer Dependency Map Symposium is coming!
🗓️ 20 Nov 2025
📍 Human Technopole, Milan
Join us for a one-day dive into:
🔹 Cancer genomics
🔹 CRISPR screening
🔹 AI-driven target discovery
With the patronage of AIRC
🔗 humantechnopole.it/en/trainings...
2nd European Cancer Dependency Map Symposium - Human Technopole
The 2nd European Cancer Dependency Map Symposium is a scientific event open to the national and international scientific community working in computational genomics, pharmacogenomics, and therapeutic ...
humantechnopole.it
isidrolauscher.bsky.social
Kudos to Sonia Zumalave in my lab for working out how to flag and remove such fold-back-like artifacts, with key contributions from @hbelrick.bsky.social @carolinmsa.bsky.social and @jevalleinclan.bsky.social. Thread on our algorithm bsky.app/profile/isid... and ..
isidrolauscher.bsky.social
Thrilled to see #SAVANA out in @natmethods.nature.com 🥳 SAVANA detects haplotype-resolved somatic SVs, copy number aberrations & infers tumour purity & ploidy using long-read sequencing with or WITHOUT a matched germline control 👇https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-025-02708-0
isidrolauscher.bsky.social
Very glad to see this preprint by @lh3lh3.bsky.social and Meyerson labs www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1... confirming our finding of artifactual fold-back inv in long reads (Fig S1 in our @natmethods.nature.com‬ paper presenting SAVANA, which filters such artifacts to improve SV calling 👇
Reposted
ebi.embl.org
Work by researchers in the group of @isidrolauscher.bsky.social at EMBL-EBI, the R&D lab of @genomicsengland.bsky.social, in collaboration with clinical partners at @ucl.ac.uk, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Instituto de Medicina Molecular João Lobo Antunes, and Boston Children’s Hospital.
isidrolauscher.bsky.social
Very well done indeed @hbelrick.bsky.social ! 😀
hbelrick.bsky.social
Really happy to see this out! See the great explainer thread below from @isidrolauscher.bsky.social on my main PhD project, SAVANA
isidrolauscher.bsky.social
Thrilled to see #SAVANA out in @natmethods.nature.com 🥳 SAVANA detects haplotype-resolved somatic SVs, copy number aberrations & infers tumour purity & ploidy using long-read sequencing with or WITHOUT a matched germline control 👇https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-025-02708-0
Reposted
jevalleinclan.bsky.social
SAVANA is out in the wild 🦁! #SAVANA detects haplotype-resolved somatic structural variants (SVs), copy number aberrations, and calculates tumour purity and ploidy using long-read data. Together with it, a robust, data-driven benchmarking effort! Below is a thread with all the advantages 👇
isidrolauscher.bsky.social
Thrilled to see #SAVANA out in @natmethods.nature.com 🥳 SAVANA detects haplotype-resolved somatic SVs, copy number aberrations & infers tumour purity & ploidy using long-read sequencing with or WITHOUT a matched germline control 👇https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-025-02708-0
isidrolauscher.bsky.social
and huge thanks to our funders 🙏 @curesarcoma.bsky.social CTOS, @embl.org and others!
isidrolauscher.bsky.social
SAVANA was developed by two superstars in the lab @hbelrick.bsky.social & Carolin Sauer in close collaboration once again with Prof. Flanagan and team at @ucl.ac.uk with key contributions from...
isidrolauscher.bsky.social
In sum, we establish best practices for benchmarking SV detection methods for somatic (eg cancer) genome analysis, and show that SAVANA enables the application of long-read sequencing to detect SVs and SCNAs reliably in clinical samples.
isidrolauscher.bsky.social
In practice, this means that we can now study, reliably, complex genomic rearrangements (e.g. #chromothripsis) and clinically relevant events causing tumour suppressor gene loss using long reads (left) with comparable accuracy to Illumina (right):
isidrolauscher.bsky.social
Moreover, using #SAVANA, we can estimate tumour purity and ploidy with comparable accuracy to illumina data (using the fantastic pipeline developed by the Hartwig Medical Foundation @ecuppen.bsky.social @danielisskeptical.bsky.social for clinical reports) even WITHOUT a germline control!
isidrolauscher.bsky.social
Using SAVANA, we recover most of the SVs detected in short-read data (note the higher than two-fold diff in coverage between long and short reads here!!), and most of the SVs detected using long reads are detected in illumina data (note that we are not using ultra-long reads)
isidrolauscher.bsky.social
Now that we have a robustly-validated algorithm we can address the question you are all waiting for (and which many colleagues have asked us many times): what is the relative performance of long & short reads to analyze human cancer genomes?
isidrolauscher.bsky.social
What underpins the higher performance of SAVANA? A key innovation of SAVANA is the use of machine learning to distinguish true somatic signal from artefacts. The key challenge here was to curate a large training set (see details in the paper).
isidrolauscher.bsky.social
In sum, these data indicate that SAVANA delivers SV results consistent with tumour biology, and the differences in SV rates across algorithms are caused by variable algorithmic performance, rather than true biological signal (see other analysis in support of this conclusion in the paper)
isidrolauscher.bsky.social
For example, existing methods detect 100s to 1000s of SVs in each sample mapping to microsatellite regions (#SAVANA doesn’t). The tumour types we analysed (sarcomas and glioblastomas) rarely show such levels of repeat instability, which we confirmed for our sample using illumina
isidrolauscher.bsky.social
We found the same when using simulated sequencing replicates of the blood samples we use as germline controls. So, what are the false positive SVs called by some algorithms and not by others? What drives such strong differences in performance?
isidrolauscher.bsky.social
Using sequencing replicates of the normal cell line COLO829BL, we found that SAVANA shows 13- and 82-times higher specificity than the second and third-best performing algorithms (391x higher than the worse performing one). In practice, this means 10s-1000s less false positives..
isidrolauscher.bsky.social
Still not convinced? We also reasoned the following. If you use the same sample as both the tumour and matched germline sample to look for somatic SVs, how many would you detect? The answer is: 0, as you are comparing the same sample against itself. In other words: 1-1=0
isidrolauscher.bsky.social
Well, nullius in verba, let the data speak. SAVANA shows uniform and much higher replication rates across SV clonality levels, sizes, types, samples and genomic regions. Thus, SAVANA's performance if driven by higher sensitivity and specificity!