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-...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |