High-throughput biological technologies are routinely used to generate gene expression profiling or cytogenetics data. To achieve high performance, methods available in the literature become more specialized and often require high computational resources. Here, we propose a new versatile method based on the data-ordering rank values. We use linear algebra, the Perron–Frobenius theorem and also extend a method presented earlier for searching differentially expressed genes for the detection of recurrent copy number aberration. A result derived from the proposed method is a one-sample Student’s t-test based on rank values. The proposed method is to our knowledge the only that applies to gene expression profiling and to cytogenetics data sets. This new method is fast, deterministic, and requires a low computational load. Probabilities are associated with genes to allow a statistically significant subset selection in the data set. Stability scores are also introduced as quality parameters.
The performance and comparative analyses were carried out using real data sets. The proposed method can be accessed through an R package available from the CRAN (Comprehensive R Archive Network) website: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/fcros.
SchenaMShalonDDavisRW, et al.Quantitative monitoring of gene expression patterns with a complementary DNA microarray. Science1995; 270: 467–470.
2.
LockhartDJDongHByrneMC, et al.Expression monitoring by hybridization to high-density oligonucleotide arrays. Nature Biotechnol1996; 14: 1675–1680.
3.
WangZGersteinMSnyderM. RNA-Seq: a revolutionary tool for transcriptomics. Nature Rev Genet2009; 10: 57–63.
4.
PleasanceEACheethamRKStephensPJ, et al.A comprehensive catalogue of somatic mutations from a human cancer genome. Nature2010; 463: 191–196.
5.
JefferyIBHigginsDGCulhaneAC. Comparison and evaluation of methods for generating differentially expressed gene lists from microarray data. BMC Bioinformat2006; 7: 359–359.
6.
KadotaKNakaiYShimizuK. A weighted average difference method for detecting differentially expressed genes from microarray data. BMC Algorithms Mol Biol2008; 3: 8–8.
7.
BreitlingRArmengaudPAmtmannA, et al.Rank products: a simple, yet powerful, new method to detect differentially expressed genes in replicated microarray experiments. FEBS Lett2004; 573: 83–92.
8.
FarztdinovVMcDyerF. Distributional fold change test—a statistical approach for detecting differential expression in microarray experiments. Algorithms Mol Biol2012; 7: 29–29.
9.
TusherVGTibshiraniRChuG. Significance analysis of microarrays applied to the ionizing radiation response. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA2001; 98: 5116–5121.
10.
BaldiPTongAD. A Bayesian framework for the analysis of microarray expression data: regularized t-test and statistical inference of gene changes. Bioinformatics2001; 17: 509–519.
11.
AmbroiseCMcLachlanGJ. Selection bias in gene extraction on the basis of microarray gene-expression data. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA2002; 99: 6562–6566.
12.
SmythGK. Linear models and empirical Bayes methods for assessing differential expression in microarray experiments. Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol2004; 3: Article 3–Article 3.
13.
McCarthyDJSmythGK. Testing significance relative to a fold-change threshold is a TREAT. Bioinformatics2009; 25: 765–771.
14.
ThomasJGOlsonJMTapscottSJ, et al.An efficient and robust statistical modeling approach to discover differentially expressed genes using genomic expression profiles. Genome Res2001; 11: 1227–1236.
15.
PanW. A comparative review of statistical methods for discovery differentially expressed genes in replicated microarray experiments. Bioinformatics2002; 18: 546–554.
16.
YanofskyCMBickelDR. Validation of differential gene expression algorithms: application comparing fold-change estimation to hypothesis testing. BMC Bioinformat2010; 11: 63–63.
17.
KadotaKShimizuK. Evaluating methods for ranking differentially expressed genes applied to microarray quality control data. BMC Bioinformat2011; 12: 227–227.
18.
RobinsonMDMcCarthyDJSmythGK. Moderated statistical tests for assessing differences in tag abundance. Bioinformatics2007; 23: 2881–2887.
19.
RobinsonMDMcCarthyDJSmythGK. Small-sample estimation of negative binomial dispersion, with applications to SAGE data. Biostatistics2008; 9: 321–332.
RobinsonMDMcCarthyDJSmythGK. edge: a bioconductor package for differential expression analysis of digital gene expression data. Bioinformatics2010; 26: 139–140.
22.
HardcastleTJKellyKA. baySeq: empirical Bayesian methods for identifying differential expression in sequence count data. BMC Bioinformat2010; 11: 422–422.
23.
LundSPNettletonDMcCarthyDJ, et al.Detecting differential expression in RNA-sequence data using quasi-likelihood with shrunken dispersion estimates. Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol2012; 11: Art.8–8.
24.
WuHWangCWuZ. A new shrinkage estimator for dispersion improves differential expression detection in RNA-seq data. Biostatistics2013; 14: 232–243.
25.
van De WielMALedayGGPardoL, et al.A new shrinkage estimator for dispersion improves differential expression detection in RNA-seq data. Biostatistics2013; 14: 113–128.
26.
LengNDawsonJAThomsonJA, et al.EBSeq: an empirical Bayes hierarchical model for inference in RNA-seq experiments. Bioinformatics2013; 29: 1035–1043.
27.
YuDHuberWVitekO. Shrinkage estimation of dispersion in negative binomial models for RNA-seq experiments with small sample size. Bioinformatics2013; 29: 1275–1282.
28.
LoveMIHuberWAndersS. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol2014; 15: 550–550.
29.
McCullaghPNelderJA. Generalized linear models, New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 1989.
30.
MarioniJCMasonCEManeSM, et al.RNA-seq: an assessment of technical reproducibility and comparison with gene expression arrays. Genome Res2008; 18: 1509–11517.
31.
WangLFengZWangX, et al.DEGseq: an R package for identifying differentially expressed genes from RNA-seq data. Bioinformatics2010; 26: 136–138.
32.
AuerPLDoergeRW. A two-stage Poisson model for testing RNA-seq data. Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol2011; 10: Art.26–26.
33.
LiJWittenDMJohnstoneIM, et al.Normalization, testing, and false discovery rate estimation for RNA-sequencing data. Biostatistics2012; 13: 523–538.
34.
ZhouYHXiaKWrightFA. A powerful and flexible approach to the analysis of RNA sequence count data. Bioinformatics2011; 27: 2672–2678.
35.
LiJTibshiraniR. Finding consistent patterns: a nonparametric approach for identifying differential expression in RNA-seq data. Stat Methods Med Res2013; 22: 519–536.
36.
SonesonCDelorenziM. A comparison of methods for differential expression analysis of RNA-seq data. BMC Bioinformat2013; 14: 91–91.
37.
TangMSunJShimizuK, et al.Evaluation of methods for differential expression analysis on multi-group RNA-seq count data. BMC Bioinformat2015; 16: 361–361.
38.
BenjaminiYHochbergY. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B1995; 57: 289–300.
39.
DembéléDKastnerP. Fold change ordering statistics: a new method for detecting differentially expressed genes. BMC Bioinformat2014; 15: 14–14.
40.
EfronBTibshiraniRStoreyJD, et al.Empirical Bayes analysis of a microarray experiment. J Am Stat Assoc2001; 96: 1151–1160.
41.
EfronBTibshiraniR. Using specially designed exponential families for density estimation. Ann Stat1996; 24: 2431–2461.
42.
EfronB. Large-scale inference: empirical Bayes methods for estimation, testing and prediction, Chapter 6: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
43.
LiuRHolikAZSuS, et al.Why weight? Modelling sample and observational level variability improves power in RNA-seq analyses. Nucleic Acids Res2015; 43: e97–e97.
44.
PhipsonBLeeSMajewskiIJ, et al.Robust hyperparameter estimation protects against hypervariable genes and improves power to detect differential expression. Ann Appl Stat2016; 10: 946–963.
45.
PinkelDSegravesRSudarD, et al.High resolution analysis of DNA copy number variation using comparative genomic hybridization to microarrays. Nature Genet1998; 20: 207–211.
46.
RouveirolCStranskyNHupéP, et al.Computation of recurrent minimal genomic alterations from array-CGH data. Bioinformatics2006; 22: 849–856.
47.
DiskinSJEckTGreshockJ, et al.STAC: a method for testing the significance of DNA copy number aberrations across multiple array-CGH experiments. Genome Res2006; 16: 1149–1158.
48.
BeroukhimRGetzGNghiemphuL, et al.Assessing the significance of chromosomal aberrations in cancer: methodology and application to glioma. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA2006; 104: 20007–20012.
49.
KlijnCHolstegeHde RidderJ, et al.Identification of cancer genes using a statistical framework for multiexperiment analysis of nondiscretized array CGH data. Nucleic Acids Res2008; 36: e13–e13.
50.
RitzAParisPLIttmannMM, et al.Detection of recurrent rearrangement breakpoints from copy number data. BMC Bioinformat2011; 12: 114–114.
51.
van DykEReindersMJWesselsLF, et al.A scale-space method for detecting recurrent DNA copy number changes with analytical false discovery rate control. Nucleic Acids Res2013; 41: e100–e100.
52.
ToloşiLTheiβenJHalachevK, et al.A method for finding consensus breakpoints in the cancer genome from copy number data. Bioinformatics2013; 29: 1793–1800.
53.
LawCWChenYShiW, et al.voom: precision weights unlock linear model analysis tools for RNA-seq read counts. Genome Biol2014; 15: R29–R29.
54.
MekenkampLJMHaanJCIsraeliD, et al.Chromosomal copy number aberrations in colorectal metastases resemble their primary counterparts and differences are typically non-recurrent. PLoS One2014; 9: e86833–e86833.
55.
AlterOBrownPOBotsteinD. Singular value decomposition for genome-wide expression data processing and modeling. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA2000; 97: 10101–10106.
56.
HolterNSMaritanACieplakM, et al.Dynamic modeling of gene expression data. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA2001; 98: 1693–1698.
ZhangF. Matrix theory: Basic results and techniques20112nd ed. Springer, pp. 167–167.
62.
PillaiSUSuelTChaS. The Perron-Frobenius theorem: some of its applications. IEEE T Signal Process Mag2005; 22: 62–75.
63.
DembéléDKastnerP. Comments on: fold change ordering statistics, a new method for detecting differentially expressed genes. BMC Bioinformat2016; 17: 462–462.
64.
FellerW. An introduction to probability theory and its applications1971; Vol II, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley.
65.
DaviesPLKovacA. Local extremes, runs, strings and multiresolution. Ann Stat2001; 29: 1–65.
66.
R Core Team. A language and environment for statistical computing, 2017, www.r-project.org (accessed 17 November 2017).
67.
ZhuQMiecznikowskiJCHalfonMS. Preferred analysis methods for Affymetrix GeneChips. II. An expanded, balanced, wholly-defined spike-in dataset. BMC Bioinformat2010; 11: 285–285.
68.
IrizarryRAHobbsBCollinF, et al.Exploration, normalization, and summaries of high-density oligonucleotide array probe level data. Biostatistics2003; 4: 249–264.
69.
SokolovaMLaplameG. A systematic analysis of performance measures for classification tasks. Inform Process Manag2009; 45: 427–437.
70.
BottomlyDWalterNARHunterJE, et al.Evaluating gene expression in C57BL/6J and DBA/2J mouse striatum using RNA-seq and microarrays. PLoS One2011; 6: e17820–e17820.
71.
Frazee AC, Langmead B and Leek JT. Recount: a multi-experiment resource of analysis-ready RNA-seq gene count datasets. BMC Bioinformat 2011; 12: 449, http://bowtie-bio.sourceforge.net/recount/ (accessed 6 June 2016).
72.
TarazonaSFurió-TariPTurràD, et al.Data quality aware analysis of differential expression in RNA-seq with NOISeq R/Bioc package. Nucleic Acids Res2015; 43: e140–e140.
73.
BullardJHPurdomEHansenKD, et al.Evaluation of statistical methods for normalization and differential expression in mRNA-Seq experiments. BMC Bioinformat2010; 11: 94–94.
74.
DilliesMARauAAubertJ, et al.A comprehensive evaluation of normalization methods for Illumina high-throughput RNA sequencing data analysis. Brief Bioinform2012; 14: 671–683.
75.
LiuYZhouJWhiteKP. RNA-seq differential expression studies: more sequence or more replication?Bioinformatics2014; 30: 301–304.
76.
SircoulombFBekhoucheIFinettiP, et al.Genome profiling of ERBB2-amplified breast cancers. BMC Cancer2010; 10: 539–539.
77.
StangeDEEngelFLongerichT, et al.Expression of an ASCL2 related stem cell signature and IGF2 in colorectal cancer liver metastases with 11p15.5 gain. Gut2010; 59: 1236–1244.
78.
AguirreAJBrennanCBaileyG, et al.High-resolution characterization of the pancreatic adenocarcinoma genome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA2004; 101: 9067–9072.
79.
de RondeJJKlijnCVeldsA, et al.KC-SMARTR: an R package for detection of statistically significant aberrations in multi-experiment acgh data. BMC Res Notes2010; 3: 298–298.
80.
ZhangQDingLLarsonDE, et al.CMDS: a population-based method for identifying recurrent DNA copy number aberrations in cancer from high-resolution data. Bioinformatics2010; 26: 464–469.
81.
WalterVNobelABWrightFA. DiNAMIC: a method to identify recurrent DNA copy number aberrations in tumors. Bioinformatics2011; 27: 678–685.
82.
OlshenABVenkatramanES. Circular binary segmentation for the analysis of array-based DNA copy number data. Biostatistics2004; 5: 557–572.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
