Dataset Information

Empirical Bayes shrinkage and false discovery rate estimation, allowing for unwanted variation.

ABSTRACT: We combine two important ideas in the analysis of large-scale genomics experiments (e.g. experiments that aim to identify genes that are differentially expressed between two conditions). The first is use of Empirical Bayes (EB) methods to handle the large number of potentially-sparse effects, and estimate false discovery rates and related quantities. The second is use of factor analysis methods to deal with sources of unwanted variation such as batch effects and unmeasured confounders. We describe a simple modular fitting procedure that combines key ideas from both these lines of research. This yields new, powerful EB methods for analyzing genomics experiments that account for both sparse effects and unwanted variation. In realistic simulations, these new methods provide significant gains in power and calibration over competing methods. In real data analysis, we find that different methods, while often conceptually similar, can vary widely in their assessments of statistical significance. This highlights the need for care in both choice of methods and interpretation of results.

SUBMITTER: Gerard D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8204175 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Empirical Bayes shrinkage and false discovery rate estimation, allowing for unwanted variation.

Gerard David D Stephens Matthew M

Biostatistics (Oxford, England) 20200101 1

We combine two important ideas in the analysis of large-scale genomics experiments (e.g. experiments that aim to identify genes that are differentially expressed between two conditions). The first is use of Empirical Bayes (EB) methods to handle the large number of potentially-sparse effects, and estimate false discovery rates and related quantities. The second is use of factor analysis methods to deal with sources of unwanted variation such as batch effects and unmeasured confounders. We descri ...[more]

PMID: 29985984

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn investigating differentially expressed genes or other selected features, researchers conduct hypothesis tests to determine which biological categories, such as those of the Gene Ontology (GO), are enriched for the selected features. Multiple comparison procedures (MCPs) are commonly used to prevent excessive false positive rates. Traditional MCPs, e.g., the Bonferroni method, go to the opposite extreme: strictly controlling a family-wise error rate, resulting in excessive false negative rates. Researchers generally prefer the more balanced approach of instead controlling the false discovery rate (FDR). However, the q-values that methods of FDR control assign to biological categories tend to be too low to reliably estimate the probability that a biological category is not enriched for the preselected features. Thus, we study an application of the other estimators of that probability, which is called the local FDR (LFDR).ResultsWe considered five LFDR estimators for detecting enriched GO terms: a binomial-based estimator (BBE), a maximum likelihood estimator (MLE), a normalized MLE (NMLE), a histogram-based estimator assuming a theoretical null hypothesis (HBE), and a histogram-based estimator assuming an empirical null hypothesis (HBE-EN). Since NMLE depends not only on the data but also on the specified value of π0, the proportion of non-enriched GO terms, it is only advantageous when either π0 is already known with sufficient accuracy or there are data for only 1 GO term. By contrast, the other estimators work without specifying π0 but require data for at least 2 GO terms. Our simulation studies yielded the following summaries of the relative performance of each of those four estimators. HBE and HBE-EN produced larger biases for 2, 4, 8, 32, and 100 GO terms than BBE and MLE. BBE has the lowest bias if π0 is 1 and if the number of GO terms is between 2 and 32. The bias of MLE is no worse than that of BBE for 100 GO terms even when the ideal number of components in its underlying mixture model is unknown, but has high bias when the number of GO terms is small compared to the number of estimated parameters. For unknown values of π0, BBE has the lowest bias for a small number of GO terms (2-32 GO terms), and MLE has the lowest bias for a medium number of GO terms (100 GO terms).ConclusionsFor enrichment detection, we recommend estimating the LFDR by MLE given at least a medium number of GO terms, by BBE given a small number of GO terms, and by NMLE given either only 1 GO term or precise knowledge of π0.

Dataset Information

Empirical Bayes shrinkage and false discovery rate estimation, allowing for unwanted variation.

Publications

Empirical Bayes shrinkage and false discovery rate estimation, allowing for unwanted variation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets