Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology The Joint Null Criterion for Multiple Hypothesis Tests

Simultaneously performing many hypothesis tests is a problem commonly encountered in high-dimensional biology. In this setting, a large set of p-values is calculated from many related features measured simultaneously. Classical statistics provides a criterion for defining what a “correct” p-value is when performing a single hypothesis test. We show here that even when each p-value is marginally correct under this single hypothesis criterion, it may be the case that the joint behavior of the entire set of p-values is problematic. On the other hand, there are cases where each p-value is marginally incorrect, yet the joint distribution of the set of p-values is satisfactory. Here, we propose a criterion defining a well behaved set of simultaneously calculated p-values that provides precise control of common error rates and we introduce diagnostic procedures for assessing whether the criterion is satisfied with simulations. Multiple testing p-values that satisfy our new criterion avoid potentially large study specific errors, but also satisfy the usual assumptions for strong control of false discovery rates and family-wise error rates. We utilize the new criterion and proposed diagnostics to investigate two common issues in high-dimensional multiple testing for genomics: dependent multiple hypothesis tests and pooled versus test-specific null distributions.

[1]  S. Dudoit,et al.  Multiple Hypothesis Testing in Microarray Experiments , 2003 .

[2]  M. Newton Large-Scale Simultaneous Hypothesis Testing: The Choice of a Null Hypothesis , 2008 .

[3]  J. Hsu,et al.  Applying the Generalized Partitioning Principle to Control the Generalized Familywise Error Rate , 2007, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[4]  Yifan Huang,et al.  To permute or not to permute , 2006, Bioinform..

[5]  B. Efron Correlation and Large-Scale Simultaneous Significance Testing , 2007 .

[6]  Gordon K Smyth,et al.  Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology Linear Models and Empirical Bayes Methods for Assessing Differential Expression in Microarray Experiments , 2011 .

[7]  Stan Pounds,et al.  Estimating the Occurrence of False Positives and False Negatives in Microarray Studies by Approximating and Partitioning the Empirical Distribution of P-values , 2003, Bioinform..

[8]  Jeffrey T Leek,et al.  A general framework for multiple testing dependence , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[9]  E. Lehmann Testing Statistical Hypotheses. , 1997 .

[10]  K. Roeder,et al.  Genomic Control for Association Studies , 1999, Biometrics.

[11]  Jeffrey T Leek,et al.  The optimal discovery procedure for large-scale significance testing, with applications to comparative microarray experiments. , 2007, Biostatistics.

[12]  B. Efron Large-Scale Simultaneous Hypothesis Testing , 2004 .

[13]  Violeta Calian,et al.  Partitioning to Uncover Conditions for Permutation Tests to Control Multiple Testing Error Rates , 2008, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[14]  Chloé Friguet,et al.  A Factor Model Approach to Multiple Testing Under Dependence , 2009 .

[15]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .

[16]  J. Wellner,et al.  Empirical Processes with Applications to Statistics , 2009 .

[17]  S. Dudoit,et al.  Multiple Testing Procedures with Applications to Genomics , 2007 .

[18]  A. Owen Variance of the number of false discoveries , 2005 .

[19]  X. Cui,et al.  Improved statistical tests for differential gene expression by shrinking variance components estimates. , 2005, Biostatistics.

[20]  R. Gottardo,et al.  Statistical analysis of microarray data: a Bayesian approach. , 2003, Biostatistics.

[21]  John D. Storey The optimal discovery procedure: a new approach to simultaneous significance testing , 2007 .

[22]  John D. Storey,et al.  Strong control, conservative point estimation and simultaneous conservative consistency of false discovery rates: a unified approach , 2004 .

[23]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  THE CONTROL OF THE FALSE DISCOVERY RATE IN MULTIPLE TESTING UNDER DEPENDENCY , 2001 .

[24]  J. Shaffer Multiple Hypothesis Testing , 1995 .

[25]  R. Dougherty,et al.  FALSE DISCOVERY RATE ANALYSIS OF BRAIN DIFFUSION DIRECTION MAPS. , 2008, The annals of applied statistics.

[26]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Resampling-based false discovery rate controlling multiple test procedures for correlated test statistics , 1999 .

[27]  John D. Storey,et al.  Statistical significance for genomewide studies , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[28]  John D. Storey,et al.  Empirical Bayes Analysis of a Microarray Experiment , 2001 .

[29]  John D. Storey A direct approach to false discovery rates , 2002 .

[30]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Significance analysis of microarrays applied to the ionizing radiation response , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[31]  Deepayan Sarkar,et al.  Detecting differential gene expression with a semiparametric hierarchical mixture method. , 2004, Biostatistics.

[32]  John D. Storey,et al.  Capturing Heterogeneity in Gene Expression Studies by Surrogate Variable Analysis , 2007, PLoS genetics.