Shrinkage Estimation of Expression Fold Change As an Alternative to Testing Hypotheses of Equivalent Expression

Research on analyzing microarray data has focused on the problem of identifying differentially expressed genes to the neglect of the problem of how to integrate evidence that a gene is differentially expressed with information on the extent of its differential expression. Consequently, researchers currently prioritize genes for further study either on the basis of volcano plots or, more commonly, according to simple estimates of the fold change after filtering the genes with an arbitrary statistical significance threshold. While the subjective and informal nature of the former practice precludes quantification of its reliability, the latter practice is equivalent to using a hard-threshold estimator of the expression ratio that is not known to perform well in terms of mean-squared error, the sum of estimator variance and squared estimator bias. On the basis of two distinct simulation studies and data from different microarray studies, we systematically compared the performance of several estimators representing both current practice and shrinkage. We find that the threshold-based estimators usually perform worse than the maximum-likelihood estimator (MLE) and they often perform far worse as quantified by estimated mean-squared risk. By contrast, the shrinkage estimators tend to perform as well as or better than the MLE and never much worse than the MLE, as expected from what is known about shrinkage. However, a Bayesian measure of performance based on the prior information that few genes are differentially expressed indicates that hard-threshold estimators perform about as well as the local false discovery rate (FDR), the best of the shrinkage estimators studied. Based on the ability of the latter to leverage information across genes, we conclude that the use of the local-FDR estimator of the fold change instead of informal or threshold-based combinations of statistical tests and non-shrinkage estimators can be expected to substantially improve the reliability of gene prioritization at very little risk of doing so less reliably

Methods for peptide identification by spectral comparison

BACKGROUND: Tandem mass spectrometry followed by database search is currently the predominant technology for peptide sequencing in shotgun proteomics experiments. Most methods compare experimentally observed spectra to the theoretical spectra predicted from the sequences in protein databases. There is a growing interest, however, in comparing unknown experimental spectra to a library of previously identified spectra. This approach has the advantage of taking into account instrument-dependent factors and peptide-specific differences in fragmentation probabilities. It is also computationally more efficient for high-throughput proteomics studies. RESULTS: This paper investigates computational issues related to this spectral comparison approach. Different methods have been empirically evaluated over several large sets of spectra. First, we illustrate that the peak intensities follow a Poisson distribution. This implies that applying a square root transform will optimally stabilize the peak intensity variance. Our results show that the square root did indeed outperform other transforms, resulting in improved accuracy of spectral matching. Second, different measures of spectral similarity were compared, and the results illustrated that the correlation coefficient was most robust. Finally, we examine how to assemble multiple spectra associated with the same peptide to generate a synthetic reference spectrum. Ensemble averaging is shown to provide the best combination of accuracy and efficiency. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that when combined, these methods can boost the sensitivity and specificity of spectral comparison. Therefore they are capable of enhancing and complementing existing tools for consistent and accurate peptide identification

Host Protein Biomarkers Identify Active Tuberculosis in HIV Uninfected and Co-infected Individuals

AbstractBiomarkers for active tuberculosis (TB) are urgently needed to improve rapid TB diagnosis. The objective of this study was to identify serum protein expression changes associated with TB but not latent Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection (LTBI), uninfected states, or respiratory diseases other than TB (ORD). Serum samples from 209 HIV uninfected (HIV−) and co-infected (HIV+) individuals were studied. In the discovery phase samples were analyzed via liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry, and in the verification phase biologically independent samples were analyzed via a multiplex multiple reaction monitoring mass spectrometry (MRM-MS) assay. Compared to LTBI and ORD, host proteins were significantly differentially expressed in TB, and involved in the immune response, tissue repair, and lipid metabolism. Biomarker panels whose composition differed according to HIV status, and consisted of 8 host proteins in HIV− individuals (CD14, SEPP1, SELL, TNXB, LUM, PEPD, QSOX1, COMP, APOC1), or 10 host proteins in HIV+ individuals (CD14, SEPP1, PGLYRP2, PFN1, VASN, CPN2, TAGLN2, IGFBP6), respectively, distinguished TB from ORD with excellent accuracy (AUC=0.96 for HIV− TB, 0.95 for HIV+ TB). These results warrant validation in larger studies but provide promise that host protein biomarkers could be the basis for a rapid, blood-based test for TB

Validation of differential gene expression algorithms: Application comparing fold-change estimation to hypothesis testing

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Sustained research on the problem of determining which genes are differentially expressed on the basis of microarray data has yielded a plethora of statistical algorithms, each justified by theory, simulation, or ad hoc validation and yet differing in practical results from equally justified algorithms. Recently, a concordance method that measures agreement among gene lists have been introduced to assess various aspects of differential gene expression detection. This method has the advantage of basing its assessment solely on the results of real data analyses, but as it requires examining gene lists of given sizes, it may be unstable.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Two methodologies for assessing predictive error are described: a cross-validation method and a posterior predictive method. As a nonparametric method of estimating prediction error from observed expression levels, cross validation provides an empirical approach to assessing algorithms for detecting differential gene expression that is fully justified for large numbers of biological replicates. Because it leverages the knowledge that only a small portion of genes are differentially expressed, the posterior predictive method is expected to provide more reliable estimates of algorithm performance, allaying concerns about limited biological replication. In practice, the posterior predictive method can assess when its approximations are valid and when they are inaccurate. Under conditions in which its approximations are valid, it corroborates the results of cross validation. Both comparison methodologies are applicable to both single-channel and dual-channel microarrays. For the data sets considered, estimating prediction error by cross validation demonstrates that empirical Bayes methods based on hierarchical models tend to outperform algorithms based on selecting genes by their fold changes or by non-hierarchical model-selection criteria. (The latter two approaches have comparable performance.) The posterior predictive assessment corroborates these findings.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Algorithms for detecting differential gene expression may be compared by estimating each algorithm's error in predicting expression ratios, whether such ratios are defined across microarray channels or between two independent groups.</p> <p>According to two distinct estimators of prediction error, algorithms using hierarchical models outperform the other algorithms of the study. The fact that fold-change shrinkage performed as well as conventional model selection criteria calls for investigating algorithms that combine the strengths of significance testing and fold-change estimation.</p

Shrinkage Estimation of Effect Sizes as an Alternative to Hypothesis Testing Followed by Estimation in High-Dimensional Biology: Applications to Differential Gene Expression

Research on analyzing microarray data has focused on the problem of identifying differentially expressed genes to the neglect of the problem of how to integrate evidence that a gene is differentially expressed with information on the extent of its differential expression. Consequently, researchers currently prioritize genes for further study either on the basis of volcano plots or, more commonly, according to simple estimates of the fold change after filtering the genes with an arbitrary statistical significance threshold. While the subjective and informal nature of the former practice precludes quantification of its reliability, the latter practice is equivalent to using a hard-threshold estimator of the expression ratio that is not known to perform well in terms of mean-squared error, the sum of estimator variance and squared estimator bias. On the basis of two distinct simulation studies and data from different microarray studies, we systematically compared the performance of several estimators representing both current practice and shrinkage. We find that the threshold-based estimators usually perform worse than the maximum-likelihood estimator (MLE) and they often perform far worse as quantified by estimated mean-squared risk. By contrast, the shrinkage estimators tend to perform as well as or better than the MLE and never much worse than the MLE, as expected from what is known about shrinkage. However, a Bayesian measure of performance based on the prior information that few genes are differentially expressed indicates that hard-threshold estimators perform about as well as the local false discovery rate (FDR), the best of the shrinkage estimators studied. Based on the ability of the latter to leverage information across genes, we conclude that the use of the local-FDR estimator of the fold change instead of informal or threshold-based combinations of statistical tests and non-shrinkage estimators can be expected to substantially improve the reliability of gene prioritization at very little risk of doing so less reliably. Since the proposed replacement of post-selection estimates with shrunken estimates applies as well to other types of high-dimensional data, it could also improve the analysis of SNP data from genome-wide association studies.