Integrative analysis of cancer prognosis data with multiple subtypes using regularized gradient descent

Integrative Analysis of "-Omics" Data Using Penalty Functions

In the analysis of omics data, integrative analysis provides an effective way of pooling information across multiple datasets or multiple correlated responses, and can be more effective than single-dataset (response) analysis. Multiple families of integrative analysis methods have been proposed in the literature. The current review focuses on the penalization methods. Special attention is paid to sparse meta-analysis methods that pool summary statistics across datasets, and integrative analysis methods that pool raw data across datasets. We discuss their formulation and rationale. Beyond "standard" penalized selection, we also review contrasted penalization and Laplacian penalization which accommodate finer data structures. The computational aspects, including computational algorithms and tuning parameter selection, are examined. This review concludes with possible limitations and extensions.

Integrative analysis of prognosis data on multiple cancer subtypes

In cancer research, profiling studies have been extensively conducted, searching for genes/SNPs associated with prognosis. Cancer is diverse. Examining the similarity and difference in the genetic basis of multiple subtypes of the same cancer can lead to a better understanding of their connections and distinctions. Classic meta-analysis methods analyze each subtype separately and then compare analysis results across subtypes. Integrative analysis methods, in contrast, analyze the raw data on multiple subtypes simultaneously and can outperform meta-analysis methods. In this study, prognosis data on multiple subtypes of the same cancer are analyzed. An AFT (accelerated failure time) model is adopted to describe survival. The genetic basis of multiple subtypes is described using the heterogeneity model, which allows a gene/SNP to be associated with prognosis of some subtypes but not others. A compound penalization method is developed to identify genes that contain important SNPs associated with prognosis. The proposed method has an intuitive formulation and is realized using an iterative algorithm. Asymptotic properties are rigorously established. Simulation shows that the proposed method has satisfactory performance and outperforms a penalization-based meta-analysis method and a regularized thresholding method. An NHL (non-Hodgkin lymphoma) prognosis study with SNP measurements is analyzed. Genes associated with the three major subtypes, namely DLBCL, FL, and CLL/SLL, are identified. The proposed method identifies genes that are different from alternatives and have important implications and satisfactory prediction performance.

Integrating multi-platform genomic data using hierarchical Bayesian relevance vector machines

Background

Recent advances in genome technologies and the subsequent collection of genomic information at various molecular resolutions hold promise to accelerate the discovery of new therapeutic targets. A critical step in achieving these goals is to develop efficient clinical prediction models that integrate these diverse sources of high-throughput data. This step is challenging due to the presence of high-dimensionality and complex interactions in the data. For predicting relevant clinical outcomes, we propose a flexible statistical machine learning approach that acknowledges and models the interaction between platform-specific measurements through nonlinear kernel machines and borrows information within and between platforms through a hierarchical Bayesian framework. Our model has parameters with direct interpretations in terms of the effects of platforms and data interactions within and across platforms. The parameter estimation algorithm in our model uses a computationally efficient variational Bayes approach that scales well to large high-throughput datasets.

Results

We apply our methods of integrating gene/mRNA expression and microRNA profiles for predicting patient survival times to The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) based glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) dataset. In terms of prediction accuracy, we show that our non-linear and interaction-based integrative methods perform better than linear alternatives and non-integrative methods that do not account for interactions between the platforms. We also find several prognostic mRNAs and microRNAs that are related to tumor invasion and are known to drive tumor metastasis and severe inflammatory response in GBM. In addition, our analysis reveals several interesting mRNA and microRNA interactions that have known implications in the etiology of GBM.

Conclusions

Our approach gains its flexibility and power by modeling the non-linear interaction structures between and within the platforms. Our framework is a useful tool for biomedical researchers, since clinical prediction using multi-platform genomic information is an important step towards personalized treatment of many cancers. We have a freely available software at: http://odin.mdacc.tmc.edu/~vbaladan.

Similarity of markers identified from cancer gene expression studies: observations from GEO

Gene expression profiling has been extensively conducted in cancer research. The analysis of multiple independent cancer gene expression datasets may provide additional information and complement single-dataset analysis. In this study, we conduct multi-dataset analysis and are interested in evaluating the similarity of cancer-associated genes identified from different datasets. The first objective of this study is to briefly review some statistical methods that can be used for such evaluation. Both marginal analysis and joint analysis methods are reviewed. The second objective is to apply those methods to 26 Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) datasets on five types of cancers. Our analysis suggests that for the same cancer, the marker identification results may vary significantly across datasets, and different datasets share few common genes. In addition, datasets on different cancers share few common genes. The shared genetic basis of datasets on the same or different cancers, which has been suggested in the literature, is not observed in the analysis of GEO data.