David A Liebner1, Kun Huang, Jeffrey D Parvin. 1. Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Department of Biomedical Informatics and Comprehensive Cancer Center, Biomedical Informatics Shared Resource, The Ohio State University, Columbus OH 43210, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One of the significant obstacles in the development of clinically relevant microarray-derived biomarkers and classifiers is tissue heterogeneity. Physical cell separation techniques, such as cell sorting and laser-capture microdissection, can enrich samples for cell types of interest, but are costly, labor intensive and can limit investigation of important interactions between different cell types. RESULTS: We developed a new computational approach, called microarray microdissection with analysis of differences (MMAD), which performs microdissection in silico. Notably, MMAD (i) allows for simultaneous estimation of cell fractions and gene expression profiles of contributing cell types, (ii) adjusts for microarray normalization bias, (iii) uses the corrected Akaike information criterion during model optimization to minimize overfitting and (iv) provides mechanisms for comparing gene expression and cell fractions between samples in different classes. Computational microdissection of simulated and experimental tissue mixture datasets showed tight correlations between predicted and measured gene expression of pure tissues as well as tight correlations between reported and estimated cell fraction for each of the individual cell types. In simulation studies, MMAD showed superior ability to detect differentially expressed genes in mixed tissue samples when compared with standard metrics, including both significance analysis of microarrays and cell type-specific significance analysis of microarrays. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a new computational tool called MMAD, which is capable of performing robust tissue microdissection in silico, and which can improve the detection of differentially expressed genes. MMAD software as implemented in MATLAB is publically available for download at http://sourceforge.net/projects/mmad/.
BACKGROUND: One of the significant obstacles in the development of clinically relevant microarray-derived biomarkers and classifiers is tissue heterogeneity. Physical cell separation techniques, such as cell sorting and laser-capture microdissection, can enrich samples for cell types of interest, but are costly, labor intensive and can limit investigation of important interactions between different cell types. RESULTS: We developed a new computational approach, called microarray microdissection with analysis of differences (MMAD), which performs microdissection in silico. Notably, MMAD (i) allows for simultaneous estimation of cell fractions and gene expression profiles of contributing cell types, (ii) adjusts for microarray normalization bias, (iii) uses the corrected Akaike information criterion during model optimization to minimize overfitting and (iv) provides mechanisms for comparing gene expression and cell fractions between samples in different classes. Computational microdissection of simulated and experimental tissue mixture datasets showed tight correlations between predicted and measured gene expression of pure tissues as well as tight correlations between reported and estimated cell fraction for each of the individual cell types. In simulation studies, MMAD showed superior ability to detect differentially expressed genes in mixed tissue samples when compared with standard metrics, including both significance analysis of microarrays and cell type-specific significance analysis of microarrays. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a new computational tool called MMAD, which is capable of performing robust tissue microdissection in silico, and which can improve the detection of differentially expressed genes. MMAD software as implemented in MATLAB is publically available for download at http://sourceforge.net/projects/mmad/.
Authors: Robert J Feezor; Henry V Baker; Michael Mindrinos; Doug Hayden; Cynthia L Tannahill; Bernard H Brownstein; Adrian Fay; Sandra MacMillan; Jason Laramie; Wenzhong Xiao; Lyle L Moldawer; J Perren Cobb; Krzysztof Laudanski; Carol L Miller-Graziano; Ronald V Maier; David Schoenfeld; Ronald W Davis; Ronald G Tompkins Journal: Physiol Genomics Date: 2004-11-17 Impact factor: 3.107
Authors: Shai S Shen-Orr; Robert Tibshirani; Purvesh Khatri; Dale L Bodian; Frank Staedtler; Nicholas M Perry; Trevor Hastie; Minnie M Sarwal; Mark M Davis; Atul J Butte Journal: Nat Methods Date: 2010-03-07 Impact factor: 28.547
Authors: Anthony J Trimboli; Carmen Z Cantemir-Stone; Fu Li; Julie A Wallace; Anand Merchant; Nicholas Creasap; John C Thompson; Enrico Caserta; Hui Wang; Jean-Leon Chong; Shan Naidu; Guo Wei; Sudarshana M Sharma; Julie A Stephens; Soledad A Fernandez; Metin N Gurcan; Michael B Weinstein; Sanford H Barsky; Lisa Yee; Thomas J Rosol; Paul C Stromberg; Michael L Robinson; Francois Pepin; Michael Hallett; Morag Park; Michael C Ostrowski; Gustavo Leone Journal: Nature Date: 2009-10-22 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Jeran K Stratford; David J Bentrem; Judy M Anderson; Cheng Fan; Keith A Volmar; J S Marron; Elizabeth D Routh; Laura S Caskey; Jonathan C Samuel; Channing J Der; Leigh B Thorne; Benjamin F Calvo; Hong Jin Kim; Mark S Talamonti; Christine A Iacobuzio-Donahue; Michael A Hollingsworth; Charles M Perou; Jen Jen Yeh Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2010-07-13 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Dirk Repsilber; Sabine Kern; Anna Telaar; Gerhard Walzl; Gillian F Black; Joachim Selbig; Shreemanta K Parida; Stefan H E Kaufmann; Marc Jacobsen Journal: BMC Bioinformatics Date: 2010-01-14 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Elizabeth C Nowak; J Louise Lines; Frederick S Varn; Jie Deng; Aurelien Sarde; Rodwell Mabaera; Anna Kuta; Isabelle Le Mercier; Chao Cheng; Randolph J Noelle Journal: Immunol Rev Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 12.988
Authors: Ethan S Sokol; Sandhya Sanduja; Dexter X Jin; Daniel H Miller; Robert A Mathis; Piyush B Gupta Journal: PLoS Comput Biol Date: 2015-04-20 Impact factor: 4.475