Cargando…

Why Is There a Lack of Consensus on Molecular Subgroups of Glioblastoma? Understanding the Nature of Biological and Statistical Variability in Glioblastoma Expression Data

INTRODUCTION: Gene expression patterns characterizing clinically-relevant molecular subgroups of glioblastoma are difficult to reproduce. We suspect a combination of biological and analytic factors confounds interpretation of glioblastoma expression data. We seek to clarify the nature and relative c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Marko, Nicholas F., Quackenbush, John, Weil, Robert J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3145641/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21829433
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020826
_version_ 1782209112618041344
author Marko, Nicholas F.
Quackenbush, John
Weil, Robert J.
author_facet Marko, Nicholas F.
Quackenbush, John
Weil, Robert J.
author_sort Marko, Nicholas F.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Gene expression patterns characterizing clinically-relevant molecular subgroups of glioblastoma are difficult to reproduce. We suspect a combination of biological and analytic factors confounds interpretation of glioblastoma expression data. We seek to clarify the nature and relative contributions of these factors, to focus additional investigations, and to improve the accuracy and consistency of translational glioblastoma analyses. METHODS: We analyzed gene expression and clinical data for 340 glioblastomas in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). We developed a logic model to analyze potential sources of biological, technical, and analytic variability and used standard linear classifiers and linear dimensional reduction algorithms to investigate the nature and relative contributions of each factor. RESULTS: Commonly-described sources of classification error, including individual sample characteristics, batch effects, and analytic and technical noise make measurable but proportionally minor contributions to inconsistent molecular classification. Our analysis suggests that three, previously underappreciated factors may account for a larger fraction of classification errors: inherent non-linear/non-orthogonal relationships among the genes used in conjunction with classification algorithms that assume linearity; skewed data distributions assumed to be Gaussian; and biologic variability (noise) among tumors, of which we propose three types. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of the TCGA data demonstrates a contributory role for technical factors in molecular classification inconsistencies in glioblastoma but also suggests that biological variability, abnormal data distribution, and non-linear relationships among genes may be responsible for a proportionally larger component of classification error. These findings may have important implications for both glioblastoma research and for translational application of other large-volume biological databases.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3145641
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31456412011-08-09 Why Is There a Lack of Consensus on Molecular Subgroups of Glioblastoma? Understanding the Nature of Biological and Statistical Variability in Glioblastoma Expression Data Marko, Nicholas F. Quackenbush, John Weil, Robert J. PLoS One Research Article INTRODUCTION: Gene expression patterns characterizing clinically-relevant molecular subgroups of glioblastoma are difficult to reproduce. We suspect a combination of biological and analytic factors confounds interpretation of glioblastoma expression data. We seek to clarify the nature and relative contributions of these factors, to focus additional investigations, and to improve the accuracy and consistency of translational glioblastoma analyses. METHODS: We analyzed gene expression and clinical data for 340 glioblastomas in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). We developed a logic model to analyze potential sources of biological, technical, and analytic variability and used standard linear classifiers and linear dimensional reduction algorithms to investigate the nature and relative contributions of each factor. RESULTS: Commonly-described sources of classification error, including individual sample characteristics, batch effects, and analytic and technical noise make measurable but proportionally minor contributions to inconsistent molecular classification. Our analysis suggests that three, previously underappreciated factors may account for a larger fraction of classification errors: inherent non-linear/non-orthogonal relationships among the genes used in conjunction with classification algorithms that assume linearity; skewed data distributions assumed to be Gaussian; and biologic variability (noise) among tumors, of which we propose three types. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of the TCGA data demonstrates a contributory role for technical factors in molecular classification inconsistencies in glioblastoma but also suggests that biological variability, abnormal data distribution, and non-linear relationships among genes may be responsible for a proportionally larger component of classification error. These findings may have important implications for both glioblastoma research and for translational application of other large-volume biological databases. Public Library of Science 2011-07-28 /pmc/articles/PMC3145641/ /pubmed/21829433 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020826 Text en Marko et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Marko, Nicholas F.
Quackenbush, John
Weil, Robert J.
Why Is There a Lack of Consensus on Molecular Subgroups of Glioblastoma? Understanding the Nature of Biological and Statistical Variability in Glioblastoma Expression Data
title Why Is There a Lack of Consensus on Molecular Subgroups of Glioblastoma? Understanding the Nature of Biological and Statistical Variability in Glioblastoma Expression Data
title_full Why Is There a Lack of Consensus on Molecular Subgroups of Glioblastoma? Understanding the Nature of Biological and Statistical Variability in Glioblastoma Expression Data
title_fullStr Why Is There a Lack of Consensus on Molecular Subgroups of Glioblastoma? Understanding the Nature of Biological and Statistical Variability in Glioblastoma Expression Data
title_full_unstemmed Why Is There a Lack of Consensus on Molecular Subgroups of Glioblastoma? Understanding the Nature of Biological and Statistical Variability in Glioblastoma Expression Data
title_short Why Is There a Lack of Consensus on Molecular Subgroups of Glioblastoma? Understanding the Nature of Biological and Statistical Variability in Glioblastoma Expression Data
title_sort why is there a lack of consensus on molecular subgroups of glioblastoma? understanding the nature of biological and statistical variability in glioblastoma expression data
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3145641/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21829433
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020826
work_keys_str_mv AT markonicholasf whyistherealackofconsensusonmolecularsubgroupsofglioblastomaunderstandingthenatureofbiologicalandstatisticalvariabilityinglioblastomaexpressiondata
AT quackenbushjohn whyistherealackofconsensusonmolecularsubgroupsofglioblastomaunderstandingthenatureofbiologicalandstatisticalvariabilityinglioblastomaexpressiondata
AT weilrobertj whyistherealackofconsensusonmolecularsubgroupsofglioblastomaunderstandingthenatureofbiologicalandstatisticalvariabilityinglioblastomaexpressiondata