Stability and aggregation of ranked gene lists

Ranked gene lists are highly instable in the sense that similar measures of differential gene expression may yield very different rankings, and that a small change of the data set usually affects the obtained gene list considerably. Stability issues have long been under-considered in the literature, but they have grown to a hot topic in the last few years, perhaps as a consequence of the increasing skepticism on the reproducibility and clinical applicability of molecular research findings. In this article, we review existing approaches for the assessment of stability of ranked gene lists and the related problem of aggregation, give some practical recommendations, and warn against potential misuse of these methods. This overview is illustrated through an application to a recent leukemia data set using the freely available Bioconductor package GeneSelector

GOexpress: an R/Bioconductor package for the identification and visualisation of robust gene ontology signatures through supervised learning of gene expression data

Background: Identification of gene expression profiles that differentiate experimental groups is critical for discovery and analysis of key molecular pathways and also for selection of robust diagnostic or prognostic biomarkers. While integration of differential expression statistics has been used to refine gene set enrichment analyses, such approaches are typically limited to single gene lists resulting from simple two-group comparisons or time-series analyses. In contrast, functional class scoring and machine learning approaches provide powerful alternative methods to leverage molecular measurements for pathway analyses, and to compare continuous and multi-level categorical factors. Results: We introduce GOexpress, a software package for scoring and summarising the capacity of gene ontology features to simultaneously classify samples from multiple experimental groups. GOexpress integrates normalised gene expression data (e.g., from microarray and RNA-seq experiments) and phenotypic information of individual samples with gene ontology annotations to derive a ranking of genes and gene ontology terms using a supervised learning approach. The default random forest algorithm allows interactions between all experimental factors, and competitive scoring of expressed genes to evaluate their relative importance in classifying predefined groups of samples. Conclusions: GOexpress enables rapid identification and visualisation of ontology-related gene panels that robustly classify groups of samples and supports both categorical (e.g., infection status, treatment) and continuous (e.g., time-series, drug concentrations) experimental factors. The use of standard Bioconductor extension packages and publicly available gene ontology annotations facilitates straightforward integration of GOexpress within existing computational biology pipelines.Department of Agriculture, Food and the MarineEuropean Commission - Seventh Framework Programme (FP7)Science Foundation IrelandUniversity College Dubli

The Reproducibility of Lists of Differentially Expressed Genes in Microarray Studies

Reproducibility is a fundamental requirement in scientific experiments and clinical contexts. Recent publications raise concerns about the reliability of microarray technology because of the apparent lack of agreement between lists of differentially expressed genes (DEGs). In this study we demonstrate that (1) such discordance may stem from ranking and selecting DEGs solely by statistical significance (P) derived from widely used simple t-tests; (2) when fold change (FC) is used as the ranking criterion, the lists become much more reproducible, especially when fewer genes are selected; and (3) the instability of short DEG lists based on P cutoffs is an expected mathematical consequence of the high variability of the t-values. We recommend the use of FC ranking plus a non-stringent P cutoff as a baseline practice in order to generate more reproducible DEG lists. The FC criterion enhances reproducibility while the P criterion balances sensitivity and specificity