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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wagner, Michael, Naik, Dayanand N, Pothen, Alex, Kasukurti, Srinivas, Devineni, Raghu Ram, Adam, Bao-Ling, Semmes, O John, Wright, George L
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