Advertisement

Rank Aggregation for Candidate Gene Identification

  • Andre Burkovski
  • Ludwig Lausser
  • Johann M. Kraus
  • Hans A. Kestler
Conference paper
Part of the Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization book series (STUDIES CLASS)

Abstract

Differences of molecular processes are reflected, among others, by differences in gene expression levels of the involved cells. High-throughput methods such as microarrays and deep sequencing approaches are increasingly used to obtain these expression profiles. Often differences of gene expression across different conditions such as tumor vs inflammation are investigated. Top scoring differential genes are considered as candidates for further analysis. Measured differences may not be related to a biological process as they can also be caused by variation in measurement or by other sources of noise. A method for reducing the influence of noise is to combine the available samples. Here, we analyze different types of combination methods, early and late aggregation and compare these statistical and positional rank aggregation methods in a simulation study and by experiments on real microarray data.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was funded in part by the German federal ministry of education and research (BMBF) within the framework of the program of medical genome research (PaCa-Net; Project ID PKB-01GS08) and the framework GERONTOSYS 2 (Forschungskern SyStaR, Project ID 0315894A), and by the German Science Foundation (SFB 1074, Project Z1) and the International Graduate School in Molecular Medicine at Ulm University (GSC270). The responsibility for the content lies exclusively with the authors.

References

  1. Ailon, N., Charikar, M., & Newman, A. (2008). Aggregating inconsistent information: Ranking and clustering. Journal of the ACM, 55, 23:1–23:27.Google Scholar
  2. Alon, U., Barkai, N., Notterman, D. A., Gish, K., Ybarra, S., Mack, D., et al. (1999). Broad patterns of gene expression revealed by clustering analysis of tumor and normal colon tissues probed by oligonucleotide arrays. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA, 96(12), 6745–6750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Copeland, A. (1951). A ‘reasonable’ social welfare function. Seminar on Mathematics in Social Sciences, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  4. DeConde, R. P., Hawley, S., Falcon, S., Clegg, N., Knudsen, B., & Etzioni, R. (2006). Combining results of microarray experiments: A rank aggregation approach. Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, 5, 1–23.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Diaconis, P., & Graham, R. L. (1977). Spearman’s footrule as a measure of disarray. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 39(2), 262–268.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Dwork, C., Kumar, R., Naor, M., & Sivakumar, D. (2001). Rank aggregation revisited. Systems Research, 13(2), 86–93.Google Scholar
  7. Fagin, R., Kumar, R., & Sivakumar, D. (2003). Comparing top k lists. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (pp. 28–36). Philadelphia: SIAM.Google Scholar
  8. Kolde, R., Laur, S., Adler, P., & Vilo, J. (2012). Robust rank aggregation for gene list integration and meta-analysis. Bioinformatics, 28(4), 573–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lin, S. (2010). Rank aggregation methods. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, 2(5), 555–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Pihur, V., Datta, S., & Datta, S. (2007). Weighted rank aggregation of cluster validation measures: A monte carlo cross-entropy approach. Bioinformatics 23(13), 1607–1615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pihur, V., Datta, S., & Datta, S. (2008). Finding common genes in multiple cancer types through meta-analysis of microarray experiments: A rank aggregation approach. Genomics, 92(6), 400–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Schalekamp, F., & Zuylen, A. (2009). Rank aggregation: Together we’re strong. In Proceedings of the 11th Workshop on Algorithm Engineering and Experiments (pp. 38–51). Philadelphia: SIAM.Google Scholar
  13. Shipp, M. A., Ross, K. N., Tamayo, P., Weng, A. P., Kutok, J. L., Aguiar, R. C., et al. (2002). Diffuse large b-cell lymphoma outcome prediction by gene-expression profiling and supervised machine learning. Nature Medicine, 8(1), 68–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Smyth, G. K. (2004). Linear models and empirical Bayes methods for assessing differential expression in microarray experiments. Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, 3(1), 3.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. West, M., Blanchette, C., Dressman, H., Huang, E., Ishida, S., Spang, R., et al. (2001) Predicting the clinical status of human breast cancer by using gene expression profiles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA, 98(20), 11462–11467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andre Burkovski
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ludwig Lausser
    • 1
  • Johann M. Kraus
    • 1
  • Hans A. Kestler
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Group Bioinformatics and Systems Biology, Institute of Neural Information ProcessingUlm UniversityUlmGermany
  2. 2.International Graduate School in Molecular MedicineUlm UniversityUlmGermany

Personalised recommendations