Cargando…

A comparative study of multi-omics integration tools for cancer driver gene identification and tumour subtyping

Oncogenesis and cancer can arise as a consequence of a wide range of genomic aberrations including mutations, copy number alterations, expression changes and epigenetic modifications encompassing multiple omics layers. Integrating genomic, transcriptomic, proteomic and epigenomic datasets via multi-...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sathyanarayanan, Anita, Gupta, Rohit, Thompson, Erik W, Nyholt, Dale R, Bauer, Denis C, Nagaraj, Shivashankar H
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7711266/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31774481
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbz121
_version_ 1783618109641326592
author Sathyanarayanan, Anita
Gupta, Rohit
Thompson, Erik W
Nyholt, Dale R
Bauer, Denis C
Nagaraj, Shivashankar H
author_facet Sathyanarayanan, Anita
Gupta, Rohit
Thompson, Erik W
Nyholt, Dale R
Bauer, Denis C
Nagaraj, Shivashankar H
author_sort Sathyanarayanan, Anita
collection PubMed
description Oncogenesis and cancer can arise as a consequence of a wide range of genomic aberrations including mutations, copy number alterations, expression changes and epigenetic modifications encompassing multiple omics layers. Integrating genomic, transcriptomic, proteomic and epigenomic datasets via multi-omics analysis provides the opportunity to derive a deeper and holistic understanding of the development and progression of cancer. There are two primary approaches to integrating multi-omics data: multi-staged (focused on identifying genes driving cancer) and meta-dimensional (focused on establishing clinically relevant tumour or sample classifications). A number of ready-to-use bioinformatics tools are available to perform both multi-staged and meta-dimensional integration of multi-omics data. In this study, we compared nine different integration tools using real and simulated cancer datasets. The performance of the multi-staged integration tools were assessed at the gene, function and pathway levels, while meta-dimensional integration tools were assessed based on the sample classification performance. Additionally, we discuss the influence of factors such as data representation, sample size, signal and noise on multi-omics data integration. Our results provide current and much needed guidance regarding selection and use of the most appropriate and best performing multi-omics integration tools.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7711266
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77112662020-12-09 A comparative study of multi-omics integration tools for cancer driver gene identification and tumour subtyping Sathyanarayanan, Anita Gupta, Rohit Thompson, Erik W Nyholt, Dale R Bauer, Denis C Nagaraj, Shivashankar H Brief Bioinform Problem Solving Protocol Oncogenesis and cancer can arise as a consequence of a wide range of genomic aberrations including mutations, copy number alterations, expression changes and epigenetic modifications encompassing multiple omics layers. Integrating genomic, transcriptomic, proteomic and epigenomic datasets via multi-omics analysis provides the opportunity to derive a deeper and holistic understanding of the development and progression of cancer. There are two primary approaches to integrating multi-omics data: multi-staged (focused on identifying genes driving cancer) and meta-dimensional (focused on establishing clinically relevant tumour or sample classifications). A number of ready-to-use bioinformatics tools are available to perform both multi-staged and meta-dimensional integration of multi-omics data. In this study, we compared nine different integration tools using real and simulated cancer datasets. The performance of the multi-staged integration tools were assessed at the gene, function and pathway levels, while meta-dimensional integration tools were assessed based on the sample classification performance. Additionally, we discuss the influence of factors such as data representation, sample size, signal and noise on multi-omics data integration. Our results provide current and much needed guidance regarding selection and use of the most appropriate and best performing multi-omics integration tools. Oxford University Press 2019-11-27 /pmc/articles/PMC7711266/ /pubmed/31774481 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbz121 Text en © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Problem Solving Protocol
Sathyanarayanan, Anita
Gupta, Rohit
Thompson, Erik W
Nyholt, Dale R
Bauer, Denis C
Nagaraj, Shivashankar H
A comparative study of multi-omics integration tools for cancer driver gene identification and tumour subtyping
title A comparative study of multi-omics integration tools for cancer driver gene identification and tumour subtyping
title_full A comparative study of multi-omics integration tools for cancer driver gene identification and tumour subtyping
title_fullStr A comparative study of multi-omics integration tools for cancer driver gene identification and tumour subtyping
title_full_unstemmed A comparative study of multi-omics integration tools for cancer driver gene identification and tumour subtyping
title_short A comparative study of multi-omics integration tools for cancer driver gene identification and tumour subtyping
title_sort comparative study of multi-omics integration tools for cancer driver gene identification and tumour subtyping
topic Problem Solving Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7711266/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31774481
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbz121
work_keys_str_mv AT sathyanarayanananita acomparativestudyofmultiomicsintegrationtoolsforcancerdrivergeneidentificationandtumoursubtyping
AT guptarohit acomparativestudyofmultiomicsintegrationtoolsforcancerdrivergeneidentificationandtumoursubtyping
AT thompsonerikw acomparativestudyofmultiomicsintegrationtoolsforcancerdrivergeneidentificationandtumoursubtyping
AT nyholtdaler acomparativestudyofmultiomicsintegrationtoolsforcancerdrivergeneidentificationandtumoursubtyping
AT bauerdenisc acomparativestudyofmultiomicsintegrationtoolsforcancerdrivergeneidentificationandtumoursubtyping
AT nagarajshivashankarh acomparativestudyofmultiomicsintegrationtoolsforcancerdrivergeneidentificationandtumoursubtyping
AT sathyanarayanananita comparativestudyofmultiomicsintegrationtoolsforcancerdrivergeneidentificationandtumoursubtyping
AT guptarohit comparativestudyofmultiomicsintegrationtoolsforcancerdrivergeneidentificationandtumoursubtyping
AT thompsonerikw comparativestudyofmultiomicsintegrationtoolsforcancerdrivergeneidentificationandtumoursubtyping
AT nyholtdaler comparativestudyofmultiomicsintegrationtoolsforcancerdrivergeneidentificationandtumoursubtyping
AT bauerdenisc comparativestudyofmultiomicsintegrationtoolsforcancerdrivergeneidentificationandtumoursubtyping
AT nagarajshivashankarh comparativestudyofmultiomicsintegrationtoolsforcancerdrivergeneidentificationandtumoursubtyping