Robust rank aggregation for gene list integration and meta-analysis

Motivation: The continued progress in developing technological platforms, availability of many published experimental datasets, as well as different statistical methods to analyze those data have allowed approaching the same research question using various methods simultaneously. To get the best out of all these alternatives, we need to integrate their results in an unbiased manner. Prioritized gene lists are a common result presentation method in genomic data analysis applications. Thus, the rank aggregation methods can become a useful and general solution for the integration task

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

Systematic comparison of ranking aggregation methods for gene lists in experimental results

MOTIVATION: A common experimental output in biomedical science is a list of genes implicated in a given biological process or disease. The gene lists resulting from a group of studies answering the same, or similar, questions can be combined by ranking aggregation methods to find a consensus or a more reliable answer. Evaluating a ranking aggregation method on a specific type of data before using it is required to support the reliability since the property of a dataset can influence the performance of an algorithm. Such evaluation on gene lists is usually based on a simulated database because of the lack of a known truth for real data. However, simulated datasets tend to be too small compared to experimental data and neglect key features, including heterogeneity of quality, relevance and the inclusion of unranked lists. RESULTS: In this study, a group of existing methods and their variations that are suitable for meta-analysis of gene lists are compared using simulated and real data. Simulated data were used to explore the performance of the aggregation methods as a function of emulating the common scenarios of real genomic data, with various heterogeneity of quality, noise level and a mix of unranked and ranked data using 20 000 possible entities. In addition to the evaluation with simulated data, a comparison using real genomic data on the SARS-CoV-2 virus, cancer (non-small cell lung cancer) and bacteria (macrophage apoptosis) was performed. We summarize the results of our evaluation in a simple flowchart to select a ranking aggregation method, and in an automated implementation using the meta-analysis by information content algorithm to infer heterogeneity of data quality across input datasets. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The code for simulated data generation and running edited version of algorithms: https://github.com/baillielab/comparison_of_RA_methods. Code to perform an optimal selection of methods based on the results of this review, using the MAIC algorithm to infer the characteristics of an input dataset, can be downloaded here: https://github.com/baillielab/maic. An online service for running MAIC: https://baillielab.net/maic. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online

Literature optimized integration of gene expression for organ-specific evaluation of toxicogenomics datasets

The study of drug toxicity in human organs is complicated by their complex inter-relations and by the obvious difficulty to testing drug effects on biologically relevant material. Animal models and human cell cultures offer alternatives for systematic and large-scale profiling of drug effects on gene expression level, as typically found in the so-called toxicogenomics datasets. However, the complexity of these data, which includes variable drug doses, time points, and experimental setups, makes it difficult to choose and integrate the data, and to evaluate the appropriateness of one or another model system to study drug toxicity (of particular drugs) of particular human organs. Here, we define a protocol to integrate drug-wise rankings of gene expression changes in toxicogenomics data, which we apply to the TG-GATEs dataset, to prioritize genes for association to drug toxicity in liver or kidney. Contrast of the results with sets of known human genes associated to drug toxicity in the literature allows to compare different rank aggregation approaches for the task at hand. Collectively, ranks from multiple models point to genes not previously associated to toxicity, notably, the PCNA clamp associated factor (PCLAF), and genes regulated by the master regulator of the antioxidant response NFE2L2, such as NQO1 and SRXN1. In addition, comparing gene ranks from different models allowed us to evaluate striking differences in terms of toxicity-associated genes between human and rat hepatocytes or between rat liver and rat hepatocytes. We interpret these results to point to the different molecular functions associated to organ toxicity that are best described by each model. We conclude that the expected production of toxicogenomics panels with larger numbers of drugs and models, in combination with the ongoing increase of the experimental literature in organ toxicity, will lead to increasingly better associations of genes for organism toxicity

Fast and Robust Rank Aggregation against Model Misspecification

In rank aggregation, preferences from different users are summarized into a total order under the homogeneous data assumption. Thus, model misspecification arises and rank aggregation methods take some noise models into account. However, they all rely on certain noise model assumptions and cannot handle agnostic noises in the real world. In this paper, we propose CoarsenRank, which rectifies the underlying data distribution directly and aligns it to the homogeneous data assumption without involving any noise model. To this end, we define a neighborhood of the data distribution over which Bayesian inference of CoarsenRank is performed, and therefore the resultant posterior enjoys robustness against model misspecification. Further, we derive a tractable closed-form solution for CoarsenRank making it computationally efficient. Experiments on real-world datasets show that CoarsenRank is fast and robust, achieving consistent improvement over baseline methods

A multi-gene signature predicts outcome in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

© 2014 Haider et al.; licensee BioMed Central. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.Improved usage of the repertoires of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) profiles is crucially needed to guide the development of predictive and prognostic tools that could inform the selection of treatment options

Weighted Heuristic Ensemble of Filters

Feature selection has become increasingly important in data mining in recent years due to the rapid increase in the dimensionality of big data. However, the reliability and consistency of feature selection methods (filters) vary considerably on different data and no single filter performs consistently well under various conditions. Therefore, feature selection ensemble has been investigated recently to provide more reliable and effective results than any individual one but all the existing feature selection ensemble treat the feature selection methods equally regardless of their performance. In this paper, we present a novel framework which applies weighted feature selection ensemble through proposing a systemic way of adding different weights to the feature selection methods-filters. Also, we investigate how to determine the appropriate weight for each filter in an ensemble. Experiments based on ten benchmark datasets show that theoretically and intuitively adding more weight to ‘good filters’ should lead to better results but in reality it is very uncertain. This assumption was found to be correct for some examples in our experiment. However, for other situations, filters which had been assumed to perform well showed bad performance leading to even worse results. Therefore adding weight to filters might not achieve much in accuracy terms, in addition to increasing complexity, time consumption and clearly decreasing the stability