ICIC 2009: Emerging Intelligent Computing Technology and Applications. With Aspects of Artificial Intelligence pp 945-954 | Cite as
A Novel Method to Robust Tumor Classification Based on MACE Filter
Abstract
Gene expression profiles consisting of thousands of genes can describe the characteristics of specific cancer subtype. By efficiently using the overall scheme of gene expression, accurate tumor diagnosis can be performed well in clinical medicine. However, faced many problems such as too much noise and the curse of dimensionality that the number of genes far exceeds the size of samples in tumor dataset, tumor classification by selecting a small set of gene subset from the thousands of genes becomes a challenging task. This paper proposed a novel high accuracy method, which utilized the global scheme of differentially expressed genes corresponding to each tumor subtype which is determined by tumor-related genes, to classify tumor samples by using Minimum Average Correlation Energy (MACE) filter method to computing the similarity degree between a test sample with unknown label in test set and the template constructed with training set. The experimental results obtained on two actual tumor datasets indicate that the proposed method is very effective and robust in classification performance.
Keywords
Gene expression profiles MACE filter tumor classification similarity degree DNA microarrayPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Dabney, A.R.: Classification of microarrays to nearest centroids. Bioinformatics 21(22), 4148–4154 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.Wang, L.P., Chu, F., Xie, W.: Accurate cancer classification using expressions of very few genes. IEEE/ACM Transactions on computational biology and bioinformatics 4(1), 40–53 (2007)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 3.Huang, H.L., Lee, C.C., Ho, S.Y.: Selecting a minimal number of relevant genes from microarray data to design accurate tissue classifiers. BioSystems 90(1), 78–86 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Sreekumar, J., Jose, K.K.: Statistical tests for identification of differentially expressed genes in cDNA microarray experiments. Indian Journal of Biotechnology 7(4), 423–436 (2008)Google Scholar
- 5.Deng, L., Ma, J.W., Pei, J.: Rank sum method for related gene selection and its application to tumor diagnosis. Chinese Science Bulletin 49(15), 1652–1657 (2004)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 6.Li, L.P., Darden, T.A., Weinberg, C.R., Levine, A.J., Pedersen, L.G.: Gene assessment and sample classification for gene expression data using a genetic algorithm/k-nearest neighbor method. Combinatorial Chemistry & High Throughput Screening 4(8), 727–739 (2001)Google Scholar
- 7.Zhou, X., Tuck, D.P.: MSVM-RFE: extensions of SVM-RFE for multiclass gene selection on DNA microarray data. Bioinformatics 23(9), 1106–1114 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Troyanskaya, O.G., Garber, M.E., Brown, P.O., Botstein, D., Altman, R.B.: Nonparametric methods for identifying differentially expressed genes in microarray data. Bioinformatics 18(11), 1454–1461 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Lehmann, E.L.: Non-parametrics: Statistical methods based on ranks, Holden-Day, San Francisco (1975)Google Scholar
- 10.Wilcoxon, F.: Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics 1, 80–83 (1945)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Kruskal, W.H., Wallis, W.A.: Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association 47(260), 583–621 (1952)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Mahalanobis, A., Kumar, B.V.K., Casasent, D.: Minimum average correlation energy filters. Appl. Opt. 26, 3633–3640 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Kumar, B.V.: Tutorial survey of composite filter designs for optical correlators. Appl. Opt. 31, 4773–4801 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Kumar, B.V., Savvides, V.M.K., Xie, C., Thornton, J., Mahalanobis, A.: Biometric verification using advanced correlation filters. Appl. Opt. 43, 391–402 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Kumar, B.V.: Minimum variance synthetic discriminant functions. Opt. Soc. Am. A 3, 1579–1584 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Yeoh, E.J., Ross, M.E., Shurtleff, S.A., Williams, W.K., Patel, D., Mahfouz, R., Behm, F.G., Raimondi, S.C., Relling, M.V., Patel, A., Cheng, C., Campana, D., Wilkins, D., Zhou, X., Li, J., Liu, H., Pui, C.H., Evans, W.E., Naeve, C., Wong, L., Downing, J.R.: Classification, subtype discovery, and prediction of outcome in pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia by gene expression profiling. Cancer Cell 1(2), 133–143 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Khan, J., Wei, J.S., Ringner, M., Saal, L.H., Ladanyi, M., Westermann, F., Berthold, F., Schwab, M., Antonescu, C.R., Peterson, C., Meltzer, P.S.: Classification and diagnostic prediction of cancers using gene expression profiling and artificial neural networks. Nature Medicine 7(6), 673–679 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Deutsch, J.M.: Evolutionary algorithms for finding optimal gene sets in microarray prediction. Bioinformatics 19(1), 45–52 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Tibshirani, R., Hastie, T., Narasimhan, B., Chu, G.: Diagnosis of multiple cancer types by shrunken centroids of gene expression. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99(10), 6567–6572 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Dabney, A.R., Storey, J.D.: Optimality driven nearest centroid classification from genomic data. PLoS ONE 2(10), e1002 (2007), doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001002CrossRefGoogle Scholar