* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Multiple Comparisons with Gene Expression Arrays Using a Data
Oncogenomics wikipedia , lookup
Gene nomenclature wikipedia , lookup
Therapeutic gene modulation wikipedia , lookup
Gene desert wikipedia , lookup
Quantitative trait locus wikipedia , lookup
Polycomb Group Proteins and Cancer wikipedia , lookup
History of genetic engineering wikipedia , lookup
Pathogenomics wikipedia , lookup
Essential gene wikipedia , lookup
Site-specific recombinase technology wikipedia , lookup
Public health genomics wikipedia , lookup
Nutriepigenomics wikipedia , lookup
Genome evolution wikipedia , lookup
Genomic imprinting wikipedia , lookup
Minimal genome wikipedia , lookup
Genome (book) wikipedia , lookup
Ridge (biology) wikipedia , lookup
Gene expression programming wikipedia , lookup
Microevolution wikipedia , lookup
Epigenetics of human development wikipedia , lookup
Artificial gene synthesis wikipedia , lookup
Biology and consumer behaviour wikipedia , lookup
IZBI-Workshop, November 11, 2002, Leipzig New Proposals for Multiple Test Procedures, Applied to Gene Expression Array Data Siegfried Kropf, Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg in cooperation with Jürgen Läuter, Magdeburg Peter H. Westfall, Lubbok, USA Markus Eszlinger, Knut Krohn, Leipzig Otto von Guericke 1602-2002 11.11.2002 Leipzig 2 Example data – gene expression arrays Example 1 Atlas Human Cancer 1.2 Array 6 quadrants, each 98 genes (double spotted): 588 genes + housekeeping genes 11.11.2002 Leipzig 3 • • • • applied to 6 patients with nodules in thyroid gland 3 hot, 3 cold, here not distinguished, + surrounding logarithmic transformation, double spots averaged correction with housekeeping gene at position i5a distribution can hardly be checked with n = 6, standard deviation of the genes is not too different: 100 20 80 60 10 40 20 0 0 .005 .045 .025 .085 .065 .125 .105 .165 .145 .205 .185 .245 Standard deviation of 98 genes in quadrant A 11.11.2002 .005 .045 .025 .225 Leipzig .085 .065 .125 .105 .165 .145 .205 .185 .245 .225 Standard deviation of all 588 genes 4 Example 2 • 30 patients with nodules in thyroids • 15 hot nodules, 15 cold nodules • tissue samples of nodules and surrounding • analysed with Affymetrix® Gene Chips • Signal log ratio nodule vs. surrounding from each patient for each of 12.625 genes • outlier catching by additional logistic transformation • approximately multivariate normal distribution • “similar” variances for all genes, expectation 0 if unaffected 11.11.2002 Leipzig 5 Why familywise error rate? • Discussion: non-statistical assessment – unadjusted statistical assessment – false discovery rate – familywise error rate • familywise error rate is rather high claim, growing with dimension of array (in contrast to false discovery rate) • if possible, however, then highest degree of security for the positive results of this one trial • trials mostly with small or moderate samples sizes, not enough to rule out effects in case of non-significance, therefore at least the positive results should be as sure as possible • results for FWE could at least be given in addition to other versions 11.11.2002 Leipzig 6 Procedure with data-driven ordering of hypotheses Starting point: Two well known procedures for MCPs controlling the FWE • Testing with a-priori ordered hypotheses (without -adjustment) • Bonferroni-Holm (data dependent order, with adjustment) In analysis of high-dimensional gene expression arrays both not applicable/optimal. We are looking for a method with data dependent ordering of hypotheses but without -adjustment. 11.11.2002 Leipzig 7 New proposal (Kropf, 2000; Kropf and Läuter, 2002) Consider one-sample situation first: data matrix from n iid p-dimensional normal data vectors x x x 1p (1) 11 X , x( j ) ~ N p (, ) ( j 1,, n) , i , ij x xn1 xnp (n) Aim: test of the local hypotheses Hi: i = 0 at the strong FWE . Procedure I: n • sort variables for decreasing values of wii x ji 2 , j 1 • in that order carry out the unadjusted one-sample t tests for the variables as long as significance is attained. 11.11.2002 Leipzig 8 Remark: In order to yield an efficient order of variables, the variances of the variables should be approximately equal because with 1 n 1 n 2 xi 2 s x x xi x ji , i and ti ji i n 1 j 1 n j 1 si n we have wii x n x x ji xi si2 (ti2 n 1) . n j 1 n 2 ji 2 i 2 j 1 Thus, approximately equal variances are important for a high power of the procedure. 11.11.2002 Leipzig 9 Proof that the procedure keeps the FWE (draft): The univariate t tests with the single variables are considered as special cases of the stabilized multivariate tests with scores zj = d´x(j) . The weight vectors are d (d1 d p ) with n n 2 2 1 if x max ( x ji jl ) l 1,..., p di j 1 l 1 0 else That alone would, however, only ensure the multiple error rate under the global hypothesis (regardless of variances). Additionally, we have special criteria for ordering and special tests – the non-null variables do not confuse the behaviour of the null variables, only conservative influence. 11.11.2002 Leipzig 10 Example I: Comparison nodules vs. surrounding (3 hot and 3 cold nodules together one-sample test vs. 0) Quadrant A only (98 genes, 2 spots aver., corrected with housek. genes) gene no. 56 71 1 78 88 29 19 10 57 54 31 8 sum of squares unadjusted P-value 0.6020 0.0017 0.5481 0.0390 0.5334 0.0012 0.4551 0.0075 0.3629 0.0363 0.3573 0.0036 0.3456 0.0263 0.3454 0.0043 0.3451 0.0092 0.3430 0.0460 0.3052 0.0594 0.3023 0.0462 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # locally sign. genes: 33 # sign. genes Holm‘s proc.: 0 11.11.2002 # sign. genes Westfall-Young: 0 # sign. genes Procedure I: 10 Leipzig 11 Example II: 15 cold nodules vs. surrounding (one-sample problem) no. gene P value 1 6746 2 · 10-4 2 6567 2 · 10-4 3 848 0.38 4 3568 5 · 10-3 5 6257 0.34 6 6518 0.04 7 8104 1 · 10-6 8 8135 5 · 10-5 9 6919 0.21 ... ... 11.11.2002 ... For comparison: without any adjustment: 1064 Bonferroni /Holm: 1 (gene 8104) Westfall / Young: 0 The present procedure stops already after the 2nd gene. The basic trend for sums of squares is present, but the procedure is sensitive to disturbances. It should be smoothed (see below, hybridisation with Bonferroni / Holm). Leipzig 12 Simulation experiments Simulation experiments guided by example I: n = 6,...,33 cases, p = 98 variables, normally distributed, variance 1, pairwise correlation 0.5, A expectation 0 for 88 var‘s, other 10 var‘s: 12 / n B C 10 Average # of significant genes in Monte Carlo replications 8 unadjusted tests 6 Procedure I 4 Westfall/Young 2 Holm's procedure 0 5 11.11.2002 10 15 20 25 sample size n sample size n Leipzig 30 35 13 Extensions: • Other test problems: – particularly comparison of two/more independent samples K nk • ordering by sums of squares wii ( xkji xi ) 2, k 1 j 1 i.e., related to the variablewise total mean of all samples, • then two-sample t tests or one-way ANOVA. • Other subsets of variables (e.g., pairs of variables) Kropf, Läuter (2002) • „Distribution-free“ version possible 11.11.2002 Leipzig 14 Weighted procedure (Procedure II) In notation of the one-sample problem (Westfall, Kropf, Finos, 2002) • Calculate the P-values pi (i = 1, …, p) for the usual unadjusted one-sample t test for each of the p variables. • For each variable, determine the sums of squares values n wii x ji and the weights gi wii for fixed 0 . 2 j 1 • Calculate the weighted P-values qi = pi / gi and order the variables for increasing values of them. • Then the hypothesis H(j) for the jth ordered variable is rejected iff q(i ) i 1,..., j . h: xhSi g h Si : ith ordered variable and all subsequent ones. 11.11.2002 Leipzig 15 How does this procedure fit to the others above? • Procedure II utilises ideas from Bonferroni/Holm (fixed weights) as well as from Procedure II (data-driven through wii). • = 0, gi = wii0 = 1 : Then the procedure is identical to usual unweighted Bonferroni / Holm. • : According to Westfall and Krishen (2001), the influence of the weights totally rules out the P-values from BonferroniHolm, critical function converges to that of Procedure I. • Intermediate values of : both parts are present, „power- assumption“ of equal variances only important for part of Procedure I. In an application, has to be fixed in advance! 11.11.2002 Leipzig 16 Example 2 again Cold nodules vs. surrounding Is the choice of genes stable? unadjusted 1064, Westf./Y. 0 14 200 12 100 10 50 40 30 20 eta 8 6 10 5 4 3 2 4 Pr. I 2 0 1 VAR00001 11.11.2002 3568 9685 7704 8137 4682 825 7603 6746 6567 64 8135 16 5786 4 0 20 0 10 0 450 30 20 10 1 45 3 2 1 .54 . .3 .2 .25 7465 .5 .4 .3 8104 B/H gene Leipzig 17 Example 2, cont. hot nodules vs. surrounding hot vs. cold nodules unadjusted 2597, Westf./Y. 93 unadjusted 1290, Westf./Y. 2 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 number of significant genes B/H 5 4 3 B/H Pr. I Pr. I 0 Leipzig 18 0 20 0 10 64 50 40 30 20 16 10 4 5 4 3 2 1 1 .25 VAR00001 parameter eta 11.11.2002 1 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 .2 .3.4.5 1 2 3 45 10 20304050 100 200 .25 1 4 16 64 2 Simulation experiments with weighted procedure guided by example II • • • • • p = 12.625 variables, n = 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20, 30, 50, 100 number of significant genes 10, 100, 1000 pairwise correlation coefficient 0 or 0.5 heterogeneity of variances in 5 levels • influence of pairwise correlation on optimal choice of small, also number of significant genes not so important • sample size is influential (and known in practice) • heterogeneity of variances is important, too, but not known in practice; estimation through wii ensures only weak FWE control. 11.11.2002 Leipzig 19 Summary • A new technique for multiple testing with data-dependent ordering of hypotheses is proposed. • It keeps the FWE in the strong sense for arbitrary multivariate normal data. • In order to provide a high power, the variables should have approximately equal variances. • The proposal is advantageous in very small samples of high-dimensional data. • The method is sensitive to disturbances. • Westfall‘s proposal of the weighted procedure establishes a link of the above procedure and the Bonferroni-Holm method and smoothes out for these disturbances. • The weighted procedure is a real alternative to existing analysis techniques for microarray data, problem of suitable choice of . 11.11.2002 Leipzig 20 References Fang, K.-T. and Zhang, Y.-T., 1990: General Multivariate Analysis. Science Press Beijing and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Kropf, S., 2000: Hochdimensionale multivariate Verfahren in der medizinischen Statistik. Shaker Verlag, Aachen. Kropf, S., and Läuter, J., 2002: Multiple Tests for Different Sets of Variables Using a DataDriven Ordering of Hypotheses, with an Application to Gene Expression Data. Biometrical Journal 44, no. 7. Läuter J., 1996: Exact t and F Tests for Analysing Studies with Multiple Endpoints. Biometrics 52, 964-970. Läuter, J., Glimm, E., and Kropf, S., 1998: Multivariate Tests Based on Left-Spherically Distributed Linear Scores. Annals of Statistics 26, 1972-1988. Erratum: Annals of Statistics 27, 1441. Westfall, P.H., Kropf, S., and Finos, L., 2002: Weighted FWE-controlling methods in highdimensional situations. Submitted for IMS Philadelphia companion volume. Westfall, P.H. and Krishen, A. (2001): Optimally weighted, fixed sequence, and gatekeeping multiple testing procedures. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 99, 25-40. Westfall, P.H. and Young, S.S., 1993: Resampling-Based Multiple Testing. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 11.11.2002 Leipzig 21