Ian B Jeffery | PubMed Health

PubMed2006

Integrating transcription factor binding site information with gene expression datasets.

MOTIVATION: Microarrays are widely used to measure gene expression differences between sets of biological samples. Many of these differences will be due to differences in the activities of transcription factors. In principle, these differences can be detected by associating motifs in promoters with differences in gene expression levels between the groups. In practice, this is hard to do. RESULTS: We combine correspondence analysis, between group analysis and co-inertia analysis to determine which motifs, from a database of promoter motifs, are strongly associated with differences in gene expression levels. Given a database of motifs and gene expression levels from a set of arrays, the method produces a ranked list of motifs associated with any specified split in the arrays. We give an example using the Gene Atlas compendium of gene expression levels for human tissues where we search for motifs that are associated with expression in central nervous system (CNS) or muscle tissues. Most of the motifs that we find are known from previous work to be strongly associated with expression in CNS or muscle. We give a second example using a published prostate cancer dataset where we can simply and clearly find which transcriptional pathways are associated with differences between benign and metastatic samples. AVAILABILITY: The source code is freely available upon request from the authors.

Algorithms↗

PubMed2006

Comparison and evaluation of methods for generating differentially expressed gene lists from microarray data.

BACKGROUND: Numerous feature selection methods have been applied to the identification of differentially expressed genes in microarray data. These include simple fold change, classical t-statistic and moderated t-statistics. Even though these methods return gene lists that are often dissimilar, few direct comparisons of these exist. We present an empirical study in which we compare some of the most commonly used feature selection methods. We apply these to 9 publicly available datasets, and compare, both the gene lists produced and how these perform in class prediction of test datasets. RESULTS: In this study, we compared the efficiency of the feature selection methods; significance analysis of microarrays (SAM), analysis of variance (ANOVA), empirical bayes t-statistic, template matching, maxT, between group analysis (BGA), Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, the Welch t-statistic, fold change, rank products, and sets of randomly selected genes. In each case these methods were applied to 9 different binary (two class) microarray datasets. Firstly we found little agreement in gene lists produced by the different methods. Only 8 to 21% of genes were in common across all 10 feature selection methods. Secondly, we evaluated the class prediction efficiency of each gene list in training and test cross-validation using four supervised classifiers. CONCLUSION: We report that the choice of feature selection method, the number of genes in the genelist, the number of cases (samples) and the noise in the dataset, substantially influence classification success. Recommendations are made for choice of feature selection. Area under a ROC curve performed well with datasets that had low levels of noise and large sample size. Rank products performs well when datasets had low numbers of samples or high levels of noise. The Empirical bayes t-statistic performed well across a range of sample sizes.

Algorithms↗