Cargando…
Computational protein biomarker prediction: a case study for prostate cancer
BACKGROUND: Recent technological advances in mass spectrometry pose challenges in computational mathematics and statistics to process the mass spectral data into predictive models with clinical and biological significance. We discuss several classification-based approaches to finding protein biomark...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2004
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC406491/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15113409 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-5-26 |
_version_ | 1782121387167580160 |
---|---|
author | Wagner, Michael Naik, Dayanand N Pothen, Alex Kasukurti, Srinivas Devineni, Raghu Ram Adam, Bao-Ling Semmes, O John Wright, George L |
author_facet | Wagner, Michael Naik, Dayanand N Pothen, Alex Kasukurti, Srinivas Devineni, Raghu Ram Adam, Bao-Ling Semmes, O John Wright, George L |
author_sort | Wagner, Michael |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Recent technological advances in mass spectrometry pose challenges in computational mathematics and statistics to process the mass spectral data into predictive models with clinical and biological significance. We discuss several classification-based approaches to finding protein biomarker candidates using protein profiles obtained via mass spectrometry, and we assess their statistical significance. Our overall goal is to implicate peaks that have a high likelihood of being biologically linked to a given disease state, and thus to narrow the search for biomarker candidates. RESULTS: Thorough cross-validation studies and randomization tests are performed on a prostate cancer dataset with over 300 patients, obtained at the Eastern Virginia Medical School using SELDI-TOF mass spectrometry. We obtain average classification accuracies of 87% on a four-group classification problem using a two-stage linear SVM-based procedure and just 13 peaks, with other methods performing comparably. CONCLUSIONS: Modern feature selection and classification methods are powerful techniques for both the identification of biomarker candidates and the related problem of building predictive models from protein mass spectrometric profiles. Cross-validation and randomization are essential tools that must be performed carefully in order not to bias the results unfairly. However, only a biological validation and identification of the underlying proteins will ultimately confirm the actual value and power of any computational predictions. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-406491 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2004 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-4064912004-05-13 Computational protein biomarker prediction: a case study for prostate cancer Wagner, Michael Naik, Dayanand N Pothen, Alex Kasukurti, Srinivas Devineni, Raghu Ram Adam, Bao-Ling Semmes, O John Wright, George L BMC Bioinformatics Research Article BACKGROUND: Recent technological advances in mass spectrometry pose challenges in computational mathematics and statistics to process the mass spectral data into predictive models with clinical and biological significance. We discuss several classification-based approaches to finding protein biomarker candidates using protein profiles obtained via mass spectrometry, and we assess their statistical significance. Our overall goal is to implicate peaks that have a high likelihood of being biologically linked to a given disease state, and thus to narrow the search for biomarker candidates. RESULTS: Thorough cross-validation studies and randomization tests are performed on a prostate cancer dataset with over 300 patients, obtained at the Eastern Virginia Medical School using SELDI-TOF mass spectrometry. We obtain average classification accuracies of 87% on a four-group classification problem using a two-stage linear SVM-based procedure and just 13 peaks, with other methods performing comparably. CONCLUSIONS: Modern feature selection and classification methods are powerful techniques for both the identification of biomarker candidates and the related problem of building predictive models from protein mass spectrometric profiles. Cross-validation and randomization are essential tools that must be performed carefully in order not to bias the results unfairly. However, only a biological validation and identification of the underlying proteins will ultimately confirm the actual value and power of any computational predictions. BioMed Central 2004-03-11 /pmc/articles/PMC406491/ /pubmed/15113409 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-5-26 Text en Copyright © 2004 Wagner et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original URL. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Wagner, Michael Naik, Dayanand N Pothen, Alex Kasukurti, Srinivas Devineni, Raghu Ram Adam, Bao-Ling Semmes, O John Wright, George L Computational protein biomarker prediction: a case study for prostate cancer |
title | Computational protein biomarker prediction: a case study for prostate cancer |
title_full | Computational protein biomarker prediction: a case study for prostate cancer |
title_fullStr | Computational protein biomarker prediction: a case study for prostate cancer |
title_full_unstemmed | Computational protein biomarker prediction: a case study for prostate cancer |
title_short | Computational protein biomarker prediction: a case study for prostate cancer |
title_sort | computational protein biomarker prediction: a case study for prostate cancer |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC406491/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15113409 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-5-26 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wagnermichael computationalproteinbiomarkerpredictionacasestudyforprostatecancer AT naikdayanandn computationalproteinbiomarkerpredictionacasestudyforprostatecancer AT pothenalex computationalproteinbiomarkerpredictionacasestudyforprostatecancer AT kasukurtisrinivas computationalproteinbiomarkerpredictionacasestudyforprostatecancer AT devineniraghuram computationalproteinbiomarkerpredictionacasestudyforprostatecancer AT adambaoling computationalproteinbiomarkerpredictionacasestudyforprostatecancer AT semmesojohn computationalproteinbiomarkerpredictionacasestudyforprostatecancer AT wrightgeorgel computationalproteinbiomarkerpredictionacasestudyforprostatecancer |