Dataset Information

Comparative evaluation of gene-set analysis methods.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Multiple data-analytic methods have been proposed for evaluating gene-expression levels in specific biological pathways, assessing differential expression associated with a binary phenotype. Following Goeman and Bühlmann's recent review, we compared statistical performance of three methods, namely Global Test, ANCOVA Global Test, and SAM-GS, that test "self-contained null hypotheses" Via. subject sampling. The three methods were compared based on a simulation experiment and analyses of three real-world microarray datasets.

Results

In the simulation experiment, we found that the use of the asymptotic distribution in the two Global Tests leads to a statistical test with an incorrect size. Specifically, p-values calculated by the scaled chi2 distribution of Global Test and the asymptotic distribution of ANCOVA Global Test are too liberal, while the asymptotic distribution with a quadratic form of the Global Test results in p-values that are too conservative. The two Global Tests with permutation-based inference, however, gave a correct size. While the three methods showed similar power using permutation inference after a proper standardization of gene expression data, SAM-GS showed slightly higher power than the Global Tests. In the analysis of a real-world microarray dataset, the two Global Tests gave markedly different results, compared to SAM-GS, in identifying pathways whose gene expressions are associated with p53 mutation in cancer cell lines. A proper standardization of gene expression variances is necessary for the two Global Tests in order to produce biologically sensible results. After the standardization, the three methods gave very similar biologically-sensible results, with slightly higher statistical significance given by SAM-GS. The three methods gave similar patterns of results in the analysis of the other two microarray datasets.

Conclusion

An appropriate standardization makes the performance of all three methods similar, given the use of permutation-based inference. SAM-GS tends to have slightly higher power in the lower alpha-level region (i.e. gene sets that are of the greatest interest). Global Test and ANCOVA Global Test have the important advantage of being able to analyze continuous and survival phenotypes and to adjust for covariates. A free Microsoft Excel Add-In to perform SAM-GS is available from http://www.ualberta.ca/~yyasui/homepage.html.

SUBMITTER: Liu Q

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2238724 | biostudies-literature | 2007 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative evaluation of gene-set analysis methods.

Liu Qi Q Dinu Irina I Adewale Adeniyi J AJ Potter John D JD Yasui Yutaka Y

BMC bioinformatics 20071107

<h4>Background</h4>Multiple data-analytic methods have been proposed for evaluating gene-expression levels in specific biological pathways, assessing differential expression associated with a binary phenotype. Following Goeman and Bühlmann's recent review, we compared statistical performance of three methods, namely Global Test, ANCOVA Global Test, and SAM-GS, that test "self-contained null hypotheses" Via. subject sampling. The three methods were compared based on a simulation experiment and an ...[more]

PMID: 17988400

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe analysis of high-throughput gene expression data with respect to sets of genes rather than individual genes has many advantages. A variety of methods have been developed for assessing the enrichment of sets of genes with respect to differential expression. In this paper we provide a comparative study of four of these methods: Fisher's exact test, Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA), Random-Sets (RS), and Gene List Analysis with Prediction Accuracy (GLAPA). The first three methods use associative statistics, while the fourth uses predictive statistics. We first compare all four methods on simulated data sets to verify that Fisher's exact test is markedly worse than the other three approaches. We then validate the other three methods on seven real data sets with known genetic perturbations and then compare the methods on two cancer data sets where our a priori knowledge is limited.ResultsThe simulation study highlights that none of the three method outperforms all others consistently. GSEA and RS are able to detect weak signals of deregulation and they perform differently when genes in a gene set are both differentially up and down regulated. GLAPA is more conservative and large differences between the two phenotypes are required to allow the method to detect differential deregulation in gene sets. This is due to the fact that the enrichment statistic in GLAPA is prediction error which is a stronger criteria than classical two sample statistic as used in RS and GSEA. This was reflected in the analysis on real data sets as GSEA and RS were seen to be significant for particular gene sets while GLAPA was not, suggesting a small effect size. We find that the rank of gene set enrichment induced by GLAPA is more similar to RS than GSEA. More importantly, the rankings of the three methods share significant overlap.ConclusionThe three methods considered in our study recover relevant gene sets known to be deregulated in the experimental conditions and pathologies analyzed. There are differences between the three methods and GSEA seems to be more consistent in finding enriched gene sets, although no method uniformly dominates over all data sets. Our analysis highlights the deep difference existing between associative and predictive methods for detecting enrichment and the use of both to better interpret results of pathway analysis. We close with suggestions for users of gene set methods.

Project description:Enrichment analysis is a popular approach to identify pathways or sets of genes which are significantly enriched in the context of differentially expressed genes. The traditional gene set enrichment approach considers a pathway as a simple gene list disregarding any knowledge of gene or protein interactions. In contrast, the new group of so called pathway topology-based methods integrates the topological structure of a pathway into the analysis.We comparatively investigated gene set and pathway topology-based enrichment approaches, considering three gene set and four topological methods. These methods were compared in two extensive simulation studies and on a benchmark of 36 real datasets, providing the same pathway input data for all methods.In the benchmark data analysis both types of methods showed a comparable ability to detect enriched pathways. The first simulation study was conducted with KEGG pathways, which showed considerable gene overlaps between each other. In this study with original KEGG pathways, none of the topology-based methods outperformed the gene set approach. Therefore, a second simulation study was performed on non-overlapping pathways created by unique gene IDs. Here, methods accounting for pathway topology reached higher accuracy than the gene set methods, however their sensitivity was lower.We conducted one of the first comprehensive comparative works on evaluating gene set against pathway topology-based enrichment methods. The topological methods showed better performance in the simulation scenarios with non-overlapping pathways, however, they were not conclusively better in the other scenarios. This suggests that simple gene set approach might be sufficient to detect an enriched pathway under realistic circumstances. Nevertheless, more extensive studies and further benchmark data are needed to systematically evaluate these methods and to assess what gain and cost pathway topology information introduces into enrichment analysis. Both types of methods for enrichment analysis require further improvements in order to deal with the problem of pathway overlaps.

Project description:BackgroundWe address the problem of integratively analyzing multiple gene expression, microarray datasets in order to reconstruct gene-gene interaction networks. Integrating multiple datasets is generally believed to provide increased statistical power and to lead to a better characterization of the system under study. However, the presence of systematic variation across different studies makes network reverse-engineering tasks particularly challenging. We contrast two approaches that have been frequently used in the literature for addressing systematic biases: meta-analysis methods, which first calculate opportune statistics on single datasets and successively summarize them, and data-merging methods, which directly analyze the pooled data after removing eventual biases. This comparative evaluation is performed on both synthetic and real data, the latter consisting of two manually curated microarray compendia comprising several E. coli and Yeast studies, respectively. Furthermore, the reconstruction of the regulatory network of the transcription factor Ikaros in human Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells (PBMCs) is presented as a case-study.ResultsThe meta-analysis and data-merging methods included in our experimentations provided comparable performances on both synthetic and real data. Furthermore, both approaches outperformed (a) the naïve solution of merging data together ignoring possible biases, and (b) the results that are expected when only one dataset out of the available ones is analyzed in isolation. Using correlation statistics proved to be more effective than using p-values for correctly ranking candidate interactions. The results from the PBMC case-study indicate that the findings of the present study generalize to different types of network reconstruction algorithms.ConclusionsIgnoring the systematic variations that differentiate heterogeneous studies can produce results that are statistically indistinguishable from random guessing. Meta-analysis and data merging methods have proved equally effective in addressing this issue, and thus researchers may safely select the approach that best suit their specific application.

Project description:BackgroundMany gene-set analysis methods have been previously proposed and compared through simulation studies and analysis of real datasets for binary phenotypes. We focused on the survival phenotype and compared the performances of Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA), Global Test (GT), Wald-type Test (WT) and Global Boost Test (GBST) methods in a simulation study and on two ovarian cancer data sets. We considered two versions of GSEA by allowing different weights: GSEA1 uses equal weights, yielding results similar to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; while GSEA2's weights are based on the correlation between genes and the phenotype.ResultsWe compared GSEA1, GSEA2, GT, WT and GBST in a simulation study with various settings for the correlation structure of the genes and the association parameter between the survival outcome and the genes. Simulation results indicated that GT, WT and GBST consistently have higher power than GSEA1 and GSEA2 across all scenarios. However, the power of the five tests depends on the combination of correlation structure and association parameter. For the ovarian cancer data set, using the FDR threshold of q < 0.1, the GT, WT and GBST detected 12, 6 and 8 significant pathways, respectively, whereas neither GSEA1 nor GSEA2 detected any significant pathways. In addition, among the pathways found significant by GT, WT, and GBST, three pathways--Purine metabolism, Leukocyte transendothelial migration and Jak-STAT signaling pathway--overlapped with those reported in previous ovarian cancer microarray studies.ConclusionSimulation studies and a real data example indicate that GT, WT and GBST tend to have high power, whereas GSEA1 and GSEA2 have lower power. We also found that the power of the five tests is much higher when genes are correlated than when genes are independent, when survival is positively associated with genes. It seems that there is a synergistic effect in detecting significant gene sets when significant genes have within-class correlation and the association between survival and genes is positive or negative (i.e., one-direction correlation).

Dataset Information

Comparative evaluation of gene-set analysis methods.

Background

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Comparative evaluation of gene-set analysis methods.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets