This is a test version of Biostars. For the public version, visit https://www.biostars.org.
Is DNA or RNA better to get somatic mutation profile for neoantigen estimation?

Basically, my goal is estimating neoantigen amount. For this purpose, I think both methods have their advantage and disadvantage

Using DNA for mutation detection ignores the expression information. Not all variant are expressed

By using RNA for mutation detection, we can take expression level into account and give different weight to each somatic mutation on its capability to produce neoantigen. However, one single RNA-Seq only represents the expression at a single time point.

Both of them have bias. I think which methods is better depends on if the gene expression across tumor genome vary significantly.

Any comments are appreciate

somatic mutation
• 2,721 views • link
updated by sophiespo sophiespo • written by CY CY

What is a neoantigen?

• 0 views • link
written by karl.stamm karl.stamm

2 answers

Personally, I would design my experiment to use both if I could. I would use DNA sequencing to perform identication of mutations and prediction of neoantigens, then use RNAseq to quantify expression of the neoantigens. Lack of expression of a predicted neoantigen may be just as interesting as finding expression of another.

• 0 views • link
written by sophiespo sophiespo

I agree with Smith, by combining them you have ability to decrease the noise.

• 0 views • link
written by arta arta

Yes, That would be best, The question is what we can do for the best if we only have, say RNA-Seq data.

• 0 views • link
written by CY CY

Can anyone share some comments? Really appreciate

• 0 views • link
written by CY CY

Log in to answer this question.

More posts like this