Risk-conscious correction of batch effects: maximising information extraction from high-throughput genomic datasets

Contains additional information and discussion on gPCA (Reese et al., 2013). Table S1. Demonstrates the inverse proportionality between gPCA p-value and the associated ‘delta’ score, reflecting unadjusted relative magnitude of batch effects (Reese et al., 2013). The table shows the scores for all three datasets. Figure S1. Contains an Illustration to further help interpret gPCA p-value vs preserved data variance plots. (DOCX 60 kb

A Novel Statistical Method to Diagnose, Quantify and Correct Batch Effects in Genomic Studies.

Genome projects now generate large-scale data often produced at various time points by different laboratories using multiple platforms. This increases the potential for batch effects. Currently there are several batch evaluation methods like principal component analysis (PCA; mostly based on visual inspection), and sometimes they fail to reveal all of the underlying batch effects. These methods can also lead to the risk of unintentionally correcting biologically interesting factors attributed to batch effects. Here we propose a novel statistical method, finding batch effect (findBATCH), to evaluate batch effect based on probabilistic principal component and covariates analysis (PPCCA). The same framework also provides a new approach to batch correction, correcting batch effect (correctBATCH), which we have shown to be a better approach to traditional PCA-based correction. We demonstrate the utility of these methods using two different examples (breast and colorectal cancers) by merging gene expression data from different studies after diagnosing and correcting for batch effects and retaining the biological effects. These methods, along with conventional visual inspection-based PCA, are available as a part of an R package exploring batch effect (exploBATCH; https://github.com/syspremed/exploBATCH )

Detecting and Correcting Batch Effects in High-Throughput Genomic Experiments

Batch effects are due to probe-specific systematic variation between groups of samples (batches) resulting from experimental features that are not of biological interest. Principal components analysis (PCA) is commonly used as a visual tool to determine whether batch effects exist after applying a global normalization method. However, PCA yields linear combinations of the variables that contribute maximum variance and thus will not necessarily detect batch effects if they are not the largest source of variability in the data. We present an extension of principal components analysis to quantify the existence of batch effects, called guided PCA (gPCA). We describe a test statistic that uses gPCA to test if a batch effect exists. We apply our proposed test statistic derived using gPCA to simulated data and to two copy number variation case studies: the first study consisted of 614 samples from a breast cancer family study using Illumina Human 660 bead-chip arrays whereas the second case study consisted of 703 samples from a family blood pressure study that used Affymetrix SNP Array 6.0. We demonstrate that our statistic has good statistical properties and is able to identify significant batch effects in two copy number variation case studies. We further compare existing batch effect correction methods and apply gPCA to test their effectiveness. We conclude that our novel statistic that utilizes guided principal components analysis to identify whether batch effects exist in high-throughput genomic data is effective. Although our examples pertain to copy number data, gPCA is general and can be used on other data types as well

Glycosyltransferase gene expression profiles classify cancer types and propose prognostic subtypes

Aberrant glycosylation in tumours stem from altered glycosyltransferase (GT) gene expression but can the expression profiles of these signature genes be used to classify cancer types and lead to cancer subtype discovery? The differential structural changes to cellular glycan structures are predominantly regulated by the expression patterns of GT genes and are a hallmark of neoplastic cell metamorphoses. We found that the expression of 210 GT genes taken from 1893 cancer patient samples in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) microarray data are able to classify six cancers; breast, ovarian, glioblastoma, kidney, colon and lung. The GT gene expression profiles are used to develop cancer classifiers and propose subtypes. The subclassification of breast cancer solid tumour samples illustrates the discovery of subgroups from GT genes that match well against basal-like and HER2-enriched subtypes and correlates to clinical, mutation and survival data. This cancer type glycosyltransferase gene signature finding provides foundational evidence for the centrality of glycosylation in cancer

A primer on correlation-based dimension reduction methods for multi-omics analysis

The continuing advances of omic technologies mean that it is now more tangible to measure the numerous features collectively reflecting the molecular properties of a sample. When multiple omic methods are used, statistical and computational approaches can exploit these large, connected profiles. Multi-omics is the integration of different omic data sources from the same biological sample. In this review, we focus on correlation-based dimension reduction approaches for single omic datasets, followed by methods for pairs of omics datasets, before detailing further techniques for three or more omic datasets. We also briefly detail network methods when three or more omic datasets are available and which complement correlation-oriented tools. To aid readers new to this area, these are all linked to relevant R packages that can implement these procedures. Finally, we discuss scenarios of experimental design and present road maps that simplify the selection of appropriate analysis methods. This review will guide researchers navigate the emerging methods for multi-omics and help them integrate diverse omic datasets appropriately and embrace the opportunity of population multi-omics.Comment: 30 pages, 2 figures, 6 table

How to do quantile normalization correctly for gene expression data analyses.

Quantile normalization is an important normalization technique commonly used in high-dimensional data analysis. However, it is susceptible to class-effect proportion effects (the proportion of class-correlated variables in a dataset) and batch effects (the presence of potentially confounding technical variation) when applied blindly on whole data sets, resulting in higher false-positive and false-negative rates. We evaluate five strategies for performing quantile normalization, and demonstrate that good performance in terms of batch-effect correction and statistical feature selection can be readily achieved by first splitting data by sample class-labels before performing quantile normalization independently on each split ("Class-specific"). Via simulations with both real and simulated batch effects, we demonstrate that the "Class-specific" strategy (and others relying on similar principles) readily outperform whole-data quantile normalization, and is robust-preserving useful signals even during the combined analysis of separately-normalized datasets. Quantile normalization is a commonly used procedure. But when carelessly applied on whole datasets without first considering class-effect proportion and batch effects, can result in poor performance. If quantile normalization must be used, then we recommend using the "Class-specific" strategy

Statistical analysis of high-dimensional biomedical data: a gentle introduction to analytical goals, common approaches and challenges

International audienceBackground: In high-dimensional data (HDD) settings, the number of variables associated with each observation is very large. Prominent examples of HDD in biomedical research include omics data with a large number of variables such as many measurements across the genome, proteome, or metabolome, as well as electronic health records data that have large numbers of variables recorded for each patient. The statistical analysis of such data requires knowledge and experience, sometimes of complex methods adapted to the respective research questions. Methods: Advances in statistical methodology and machine learning methods offer new opportunities for innovative analyses of HDD, but at the same time require a deeper understanding of some fundamental statistical concepts. Topic group TG9 “High-dimensional data” of the STRATOS (STRengthening Analytical Thinking for Observational Studies) initiative provides guidance for the analysis of observational studies, addressing particular statistical challenges and opportunities for the analysis of studies involving HDD. In this overview, we discuss key aspects of HDD analysis to provide a gentle introduction for non-statisticians and for classically trained statisticians with little experience specific to HDD. Results: The paper is organized with respect to subtopics that are most relevant for the analysis of HDD, in particular initial data analysis, exploratory data analysis, multiple testing, and prediction. For each subtopic, main analytical goals in HDD settings are outlined. For each of these goals, basic explanations for some commonly used analysis methods are provided. Situations are identified where traditional statistical methods cannot, or should not, be used in the HDD setting, or where adequate analytic tools are still lacking. Many key references are provided. Conclusions: This review aims to provide a solid statistical foundation for researchers, including statisticians and non-statisticians, who are new to research with HDD or simply want to better evaluate and understand the results of HDD analyses