Estimating the evidence of selection and the reliability of inference in unigenic evolution

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Unigenic evolution is a large-scale mutagenesis experiment used to identify residues that are potentially important for protein function. Both currently-used methods for the analysis of unigenic evolution data analyze 'windows' of contiguous sites, a strategy that increases statistical power but incorrectly assumes that functionally-critical sites are contiguous. In addition, both methods require the questionable assumption of asymptotically-large sample size due to the presumption of approximate normality.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We develop a novel approach, termed the Evidence of Selection (EoS), removing the assumption that functionally important sites are adjacent in sequence and and explicitly modelling the effects of limited sample-size. Precise statistical derivations show that the EoS score can be easily interpreted as an expected log-odds-ratio between two competing hypotheses, namely, the hypothetical presence or absence of functional selection for a given site. Using the EoS score, we then develop selection criteria by which functionally-important yet non-adjacent sites can be identified. An approximate power analysis is also developed to estimate the reliability of inference given the data. We validate and demonstrate the the practical utility of our method by analysis of the homing endonuclease <monospace>I-Bmol</monospace>, comparing our predictions with the results of existing methods.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our method is able to assess both the evidence of selection at individual amino acid sites and estimate the reliability of those inferences. Experimental validation with <monospace>I-Bmol</monospace> proves its utility to identify functionally-important residues of poorly characterized proteins, demonstrating increased sensitivity over previous methods without loss of specificity. With the ability to guide the selection of precise experimental mutagenesis conditions, our method helps make unigenic analysis a more broadly applicable technique with which to probe protein function.</p> <p>Availability</p> <p>Software to compute, plot, and summarize EoS data is available as an open-source package called 'unigenic' for the 'R' programming language at <url>http://www.fernandes.org/txp/article/13/an-analytical-framework-for-unigenic-evolution</url>.</p

Comprehensive Serum Profiling for the Discovery of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Biomarkers

FDA-cleared ovarian cancer biomarkers are limited to CA-125 and HE4 for monitoring and recurrence and OVA1, a multivariate panel consisting of CA-125 and four additional biomarkers, for referring patients to a specialist. Due to relatively poor performance of these tests, more accurate and broadly applicable biomarkers are needed. We evaluated the dysregulation of 259 candidate cancer markers in serum samples from 499 patients. Sera were collected prospectively at 11 monitored sites under a single well-defined protocol. All stages of ovarian cancer and common benign gynecological conditions were represented. To ensure consistency and comparability of biomarker comparisons, all measurements were performed on a single platform, at a single site, using a panel of rigorously calibrated, qualified, high-throughput, multiplexed immunoassays and all analyses were conducted using the same software. Each marker was evaluated independently for its ability to differentiate ovarian cancer from benign conditions. A total of 175 markers were dysregulated in the cancer samples. HE4 (AUC = 0.933) and CA-125 (AUC = 0.907) were the most informative biomarkers, followed by IL-2 receptor α, α1-antitrypsin, C-reactive protein, YKL-40, cellular fibronectin, CA-72-4 and prostasin (AUC>0.800). To improve the discrimination between cancer and benign conditions, a simple multivariate combination of markers was explored using logistic regression. When combined into a single panel, the nine most informative individual biomarkers yielded an AUC value of 0.950, significantly higher than obtained when combining the markers in the OVA1 panel (AUC 0.912). Additionally, at a threshold sensitivity of 90%, the combination of the top 9 markers gave 88.9% specificity compared to 63.4% specificity for the OVA1 markers. Although a blinded validation study has not yet been performed, these results indicate that alternative biomarker combinations might lead to significant improvements in the detection of ovarian cancer