Influence of algorithmic parameters on marker selection in genomic datasets

The biological processes are widely studied by genome analysis leading to a large number of genes, thus making necessary the use of automated evaluation methods. In this study, we examine the influence of algorithmic parameters in the prediction power of a gene signature and in the selection process of the signature itself. We focus on one gene selection approach applied on a dataset of the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, using quite different parameters and evaluate the influence on the selected signature. In particular, we adopt a recursive feature elimination process where at each step the prognostic power of the set of remaining genes is evaluated by five different classifiers, as well as by four classifier-fusions schemes. More specifically, we consider the logistic-sigmoid, kernel nearest centroid, kernel minimum squared error, kernel subspace, and support vector machines as classifiers with different parameters and/or kernel functions. We also study four fusion methods in order to reduce uncertainties related to the classifier evaluating the prognostic significance of genes. In all cases, the selection process is embedded into a cross validation scheme in order to enhance the confidence on the generalization of results. We consider the differences of signatures based on gene overlap and also the biological annotation of selected genes, using the MIPS FunCat architecture. We found out that a robust identification of a number of highly differential genes can offer “good” predictive power to the models. Furthermore, the classification accuracy achieved by mixtures of experts can be significantly better than the one of the individual classifiers. We also pointed out that different selection schemes result in a diverse size of gene signature, with differences in the selected genes. Nevertheless, when we annotate the genes of each signature we find that the same biological processes are invoked, with possibly small differences in the relative frequency of participation.

[1]  Graziano Pesole,et al.  Selection of relevant genes in cancer diagnosis based on their prediction accuracy , 2007, Artif. Intell. Medicine.

[2]  Michalis E. Blazadonakis,et al.  Wrapper filtering criteria via linear neuron and kernel approaches , 2008, Comput. Biol. Medicine.

[3]  Jacek Łęski,et al.  A fuzzy if-then rule-based nonlinear classifier , 2003 .

[4]  Jason Weston,et al.  Gene Selection for Cancer Classification using Support Vector Machines , 2002, Machine Learning.

[5]  Leland H. Hartwell,et al.  Yeast and Cancer , 2004, Bioscience reports.

[6]  Satoru Kuhara,et al.  Gene subset selection in kernel-induced feature space , 2006, Pattern Recognit. Lett..

[7]  R. Simon,et al.  Sample size planning for developing classifiers using high-dimensional DNA microarray data. , 2007, Biostatistics.

[8]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Adaptive Mixtures of Local Experts , 1991, Neural Computation.

[9]  Zhijian Li,et al.  The Complete Spectrum of Yeast Chromosome Instability Genes Identifies Candidate CIN Cancer Genes and Functional Roles for ASTRA Complex Components , 2011, PLoS genetics.

[10]  B. Suter,et al.  Yeast-based functional genomics and proteomics technologies: the first 15 years and beyond. , 2006, BioTechniques.

[11]  D. Botstein,et al.  Cluster analysis and display of genome-wide expression patterns. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[12]  Joshua E. S. Socolar,et al.  Global control of cell-cycle transcription by coupled CDK and network oscillators , 2008, Nature.

[13]  N. Cristianini,et al.  On Kernel-Target Alignment , 2001, NIPS.

[14]  H. Mewes,et al.  The FunCat, a functional annotation scheme for systematic classification of proteins from whole genomes. , 2004, Nucleic acids research.

[15]  Chi-Wai Wong,et al.  Hunting for robust gene signature from cancer profiling data: sources of variability, different interpretations, and recent methodological developments. , 2010, Cancer letters.

[16]  Malcolm I. Heywood,et al.  Input partitioning to mixture of experts , 2002, Proceedings of the 2002 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks. IJCNN'02 (Cat. No.02CH37290).