Dataset Information

Do two machine-learning based prognostic signatures for breast cancer capture the same biological processes?

ABSTRACT: The fact that there is very little if any overlap between the genes of different prognostic signatures for early-discovery breast cancer is well documented. The reasons for this apparent discrepancy have been explained by the limits of simple machine-learning identification and ranking techniques, and the biological relevance and meaning of the prognostic gene lists was questioned. Subsequently, proponents of the prognostic gene lists claimed that different lists do capture similar underlying biological processes and pathways. The present study places under scrutiny the validity of this claim, for two important gene lists that are at the focus of current large-scale validation efforts. We performed careful enrichment analysis, controlling the effects of multiple testing in a manner which takes into account the nested dependent structure of gene ontologies. In contradiction to several previous publications, we find that the only biological process or pathway for which statistically significant concordance can be claimed is cell proliferation, a process whose relevance and prognostic value was well known long before gene expression profiling. We found that the claims reported by others, of wider concordance between the biological processes captured by the two prognostic signatures studied, were found either to be lacking statistical rigor or were in fact based on addressing some other question.

SUBMITTER: Drier Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3056769 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Do two machine-learning based prognostic signatures for breast cancer capture the same biological processes?

Drier Yotam Y Domany Eytan E

PloS one 20110314 3

The fact that there is very little if any overlap between the genes of different prognostic signatures for early-discovery breast cancer is well documented. The reasons for this apparent discrepancy have been explained by the limits of simple machine-learning identification and ranking techniques, and the biological relevance and meaning of the prognostic gene lists was questioned. Subsequently, proponents of the prognostic gene lists claimed that different lists do capture similar underlying bi ...[more]

PMID: 21423753

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlternative splicing (AS) plays critical roles in generating protein diversity and complexity. Dysregulation of AS underlies the initiation and progression of tumors. Machine learning approaches have emerged as efficient tools to identify promising biomarkers. It is meaningful to explore pivotal AS events (ASEs) to deepen understanding and improve prognostic assessments of lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) via machine learning algorithms.MethodRNA sequencing data and AS data were extracted from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database and TCGA SpliceSeq database. Using several machine learning methods, we identified 24 pairs of LUAD-related ASEs implicated in splicing switches and a random forest-based classifiers for identifying lymph node metastasis (LNM) consisting of 12 ASEs. Furthermore, we identified key prognosis-related ASEs and established a 16-ASE-based prognostic model to predict overall survival for LUAD patients using Cox regression model, random survival forest analysis, and forward selection model. Bioinformatics analyses were also applied to identify underlying mechanisms and associated upstream splicing factors (SFs).ResultsEach pair of ASEs was spliced from the same parent gene, and exhibited perfect inverse intrapair correlation (correlation coefficient = - 1). The 12-ASE-based classifier showed robust ability to evaluate LNM status of LUAD patients with the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) more than 0.7 in fivefold cross-validation. The prognostic model performed well at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years in both the training cohort and internal test cohort. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression indicated the prognostic model could be used as an independent prognostic factor for patients with LUAD. Further analysis revealed correlations between the prognostic model and American Joint Committee on Cancer stage, T stage, N stage, and living status. The splicing network constructed of survival-related SFs and ASEs depicts regulatory relationships between them.ConclusionIn summary, our study provides insight into LUAD researches and managements based on these AS biomarkers.

Project description:BackgroundThe role of Mast cells has not been thoroughly explored in the context of prostate cancer's (PCA) unpredictable prognosis and mixed immunotherapy outcomes. Our research aims to employs a comprehensive computational methodology to evaluate Mast cell marker gene signatures (MCMGS) derived from a global cohort of 1091 PCA patients. This approach is designed to identify a robust biomarker to assist in prognosis and predicting responses to immunotherapy.MethodsThis study initially identified mast cell-associated biomarkers from prostate adenocarcinoma (PRAD) patients across six international cohorts. We employed a variety of machine learning techniques, including Random Forest, Support Vector Machine (SVM), Lasso regression, and the Cox Proportional Hazards Model, to develop an effective MCMGS from candidate genes. Subsequently, an immunological assessment of MCMGS was conducted to provide new insights into the evaluation of immunotherapy responses and prognostic assessments. Additionally, we utilized Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) and pathway analysis to explore the biological pathways and mechanisms associated with MCMGS.ResultsMCMGS incorporated 13 marker genes and was successful in segregating patients into distinct high- and low-risk categories. Prognostic efficacy was confirmed by survival analysis incorporating MCMGS scores, alongside clinical parameters such as age, T stage, and Gleason scores. High MCMGS scores were correlated with upregulated pathways in fatty acid metabolism and β-alanine metabolism, while low scores correlated with DNA repair mechanisms, homologous recombination, and cell cycle progression. Patients classified as low-risk displayed increased sensitivity to drugs, indicating the utility of MCMGS in forecasting responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors.ConclusionThe combination of MCMGS with a robust machine learning methodology demonstrates considerable promise in guiding personalized risk stratification and informing therapeutic decisions for patients with PCA.

Dataset Information

Do two machine-learning based prognostic signatures for breast cancer capture the same biological processes?

Publications

Do two machine-learning based prognostic signatures for breast cancer capture the same biological processes?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets