Literature DB >> 27436563

Variance adaptive shrinkage (vash): flexible empirical Bayes estimation of variances.

Mengyin Lu1, Matthew Stephens1,2.   

Abstract

MOTIVATION: Genomic studies often involve estimation of variances of thousands of genes (or other genomic units) from just a few measurements on each. For example, variance estimation is an important step in gene expression analyses aimed at identifying differentially expressed genes. A common approach to this problem is to use an Empirical Bayes (EB) method that assumes the variances among genes follow an inverse-gamma distribution. This distributional assumption is relatively inflexible; for example, it may not capture 'outlying' genes whose variances are considerably bigger than usual. Here we describe a more flexible EB method, capable of capturing a much wider range of distributions. Indeed, the main assumption is that the distribution of the variances is unimodal (or, as an alternative, that the distribution of the precisions is unimodal). We argue that the unimodal assumption provides an attractive compromise between flexibility, computational tractability and statistical efficiency.
RESULTS: We show that this more flexible approach provides competitive performance with existing methods when the variances truly come from an inverse-gamma distribution, and can outperform them when the distribution of the variances is more complex. In analyses of several human gene expression datasets from the Genotype Tissues Expression consortium, we find that our more flexible model often fits the data appreciably better than the single inverse gamma distribution. At the same time we find that in these data this improved model fit leads to only small improvements in variance estimates and detection of differentially expressed genes.
AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Our methods are implemented in an R package vashr available from http://github.com/mengyin/vashr CONTACT: mstephens@uchicago.eduSupplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27436563      PMCID: PMC5181563          DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw483

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bioinformatics        ISSN: 1367-4803            Impact factor:   6.937


  8 in total

1.  Significance analysis of microarrays applied to the ionizing radiation response.

Authors:  V G Tusher; R Tibshirani; G Chu
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2001-04-17       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  A Bayesian framework for the analysis of microarray expression data: regularized t -test and statistical inferences of gene changes.

Authors:  P Baldi; A D Long
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 6.937

3.  Linear models and empirical bayes methods for assessing differential expression in microarray experiments.

Authors:  Gordon K Smyth
Journal:  Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol       Date:  2004-02-12

4.  ROBUST HYPERPARAMETER ESTIMATION PROTECTS AGAINST HYPERVARIABLE GENES AND IMPROVES POWER TO DETECT DIFFERENTIAL EXPRESSION.

Authors:  Belinda Phipson; Stanley Lee; Ian J Majewski; Warren S Alexander; Gordon K Smyth
Journal:  Ann Appl Stat       Date:  2016-07-22       Impact factor: 2.083

5.  The Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project.

Authors: 
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 38.330

6.  Statistical methods for ranking differentially expressed genes.

Authors:  Per Broberg
Journal:  Genome Biol       Date:  2003-05-29       Impact factor: 13.583

7.  voom: Precision weights unlock linear model analysis tools for RNA-seq read counts.

Authors:  Charity W Law; Yunshun Chen; Wei Shi; Gordon K Smyth
Journal:  Genome Biol       Date:  2014-02-03       Impact factor: 13.583

8.  Comparison of small n statistical tests of differential expression applied to microarrays.

Authors:  Carl Murie; Owen Woody; Anna Y Lee; Robert Nadon
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2009-02-03       Impact factor: 3.169

  8 in total
  3 in total

1.  False discovery rates: a new deal.

Authors:  Matthew Stephens
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2017-04-01       Impact factor: 5.899

2.  Bootstrapping and Empirical Bayes Methods Improve Rhythm Detection in Sparsely Sampled Data.

Authors:  Alan L Hutchison; Ravi Allada; Aaron R Dinner
Journal:  J Biol Rhythms       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 3.182

3.  A comparison of gene expression and DNA methylation patterns across tissues and species.

Authors:  Lauren E Blake; Julien Roux; Irene Hernando-Herraez; Nicholas E Banovich; Raquel Garcia Perez; Chiaowen Joyce Hsiao; Ittai Eres; Claudia Cuevas; Tomas Marques-Bonet; Yoav Gilad
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2020-01-17       Impact factor: 9.043

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.