Dataset Information

A comparative analysis of biclustering algorithms for gene expression data.

ABSTRACT: The need to analyze high-dimension biological data is driving the development of new data mining methods. Biclustering algorithms have been successfully applied to gene expression data to discover local patterns, in which a subset of genes exhibit similar expression levels over a subset of conditions. However, it is not clear which algorithms are best suited for this task. Many algorithms have been published in the past decade, most of which have been compared only to a small number of algorithms. Surveys and comparisons exist in the literature, but because of the large number and variety of biclustering algorithms, they are quickly outdated. In this article we partially address this problem of evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of existing biclustering methods. We used the BiBench package to compare 12 algorithms, many of which were recently published or have not been extensively studied. The algorithms were tested on a suite of synthetic data sets to measure their performance on data with varying conditions, such as different bicluster models, varying noise, varying numbers of biclusters and overlapping biclusters. The algorithms were also tested on eight large gene expression data sets obtained from the Gene Expression Omnibus. Gene Ontology enrichment analysis was performed on the resulting biclusters, and the best enrichment terms are reported. Our analyses show that the biclustering method and its parameters should be selected based on the desired model, whether that model allows overlapping biclusters, and its robustness to noise. In addition, we observe that the biclustering algorithms capable of finding more than one model are more successful at capturing biologically relevant clusters.

SUBMITTER: Eren K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3659300 | biostudies-literature | 2013 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A comparative analysis of biclustering algorithms for gene expression data.

Eren Kemal K Deveci Mehmet M Küçüktunç Onur O Çatalyürek Ümit V ÜV

Briefings in bioinformatics 20120706 3

The need to analyze high-dimension biological data is driving the development of new data mining methods. Biclustering algorithms have been successfully applied to gene expression data to discover local patterns, in which a subset of genes exhibit similar expression levels over a subset of conditions. However, it is not clear which algorithms are best suited for this task. Many algorithms have been published in the past decade, most of which have been compared only to a small number of algorithm ...[more]

PMID: 22772837

Similar Datasets

Project description:Gene clustering and sample clustering are commonly used to find patterns in gene expression datasets. However, genes may cluster differently in heterogeneous samples (e.g. different tissues or disease states), whilst traditional methods assume that clusters are consistent across samples. Biclustering algorithms aim to solve this issue by performing sample clustering and gene clustering simultaneously. Existing reviews of biclustering algorithms have yet to include a number of more recent algorithms and have based comparisons on simplistic simulated datasets without specific evaluation of biclusters in real datasets, using less robust metrics. We compared four classes of sparse biclustering algorithms on a range of simulated and real datasets. All algorithms generally struggled on simulated datasets with a large number of genes or implanted biclusters. We found that Bayesian algorithms with strict sparsity constraints had high accuracy on the simulated datasets and did not require any post-processing, but were considerably slower than other algorithm classes. We found that non-negative matrix factorisation algorithms performed poorly, but could be re-purposed for biclustering through a sparsity-inducing post-processing procedure we introduce; one such algorithm was one of the most highly ranked on real datasets. In a multi-tissue knockout mouse RNA-seq dataset, the algorithms rarely returned clusters containing samples from multiple different tissues, whilst such clusters were identified in a human dataset of more closely related cell types (sorted blood cell subsets). This highlights the need for further thought in the design and analysis of multi-tissue studies to avoid differences between tissues dominating the analysis. Code to run the analysis is available at https://github.com/nichollskc/biclust_comp, including wrappers for each algorithm, implementations of evaluation metrics, and code to simulate datasets and perform pre- and post-processing. The full tables of results are available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4581206.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral biclustering algorithms have been proposed to identify biclusters, in which genes share similar expression patterns across a number of conditions. However, different algorithms would yield different biclusters and further lead to distinct conclusions. Therefore, some testing and comparisons between these algorithms are strongly required.MethodsIn this study, five biclustering algorithms (i.e. BIMAX, FABIA, ISA, QUBIC and SAMBA) were compared with each other in the cases where they were used to handle two expression datasets (GDS1620 and pathway) with different dimensions in Arabidopsis thaliana (A. thaliana)GO (gene ontology) annotation and PPI (protein-protein interaction) network were used to verify the corresponding biological significance of biclusters from the five algorithms. To compare the algorithms' performance and evaluate quality of identified biclusters, two scoring methods, namely weighted enrichment (WE) scoring and PPI scoring, were proposed in our study. For each dataset, after combining the scores of all biclusters into one unified ranking, we could evaluate the performance and behavior of the five biclustering algorithms in a better way.ResultsBoth WE and PPI scoring methods has been proved effective to validate biological significance of the biclusters, and a significantly positive correlation between the two sets of scores has been tested to demonstrate the consistence of these two methods.A comparative study of the above five algorithms has revealed that: (1) ISA is the most effective one among the five algorithms on the dataset of GDS1620 and BIMAX outperforms the other algorithms on the dataset of pathway. (2) Both ISA and BIMAX are data-dependent. The former one does not work well on the datasets with few genes, while the latter one holds well for the datasets with more conditions. (3) FABIA and QUBIC perform poorly in this study and they may be suitable to large datasets with more genes and more conditions. (4) SAMBA is also data-independent as it performs well on two given datasets. The comparison results provide useful information for researchers to choose a suitable algorithm for each given dataset.

Dataset Information

A comparative analysis of biclustering algorithms for gene expression data.

Publications

A comparative analysis of biclustering algorithms for gene expression data.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets