Ha T N Nguyen1, Haoliang Xue1, Virginie Firlej2, Yann Ponty3, Melina Gallopin1, Daniel Gautheret4. 1. Institute for Integrative Biology of the Cell, UMR 9198, CEA, CNRS, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-Sur-Yvette, France. 2. Institute of Biology, Université Paris Est Creteil, Creteil, Creteil, France. 3. LIX CNRS UMR 7161, Ecole Polytechnique, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, Palaiseau, France. 4. Institute for Integrative Biology of the Cell, UMR 9198, CEA, CNRS, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-Sur-Yvette, France. daniel.gautheret@universite-paris-saclay.fr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: RNA-seq data are increasingly used to derive prognostic signatures for cancer outcome prediction. A limitation of current predictors is their reliance on reference gene annotations, which amounts to ignoring large numbers of non-canonical RNAs produced in disease tissues. A recently introduced kind of transcriptome classifier operates entirely in a reference-free manner, relying on k-mers extracted from patient RNA-seq data. METHODS: In this paper, we set out to compare conventional and reference-free signatures in risk and relapse prediction of prostate cancer. To compare the two approaches as fairly as possible, we set up a common procedure that takes as input either a k-mer count matrix or a gene expression matrix, extracts a signature and evaluates this signature in an independent dataset. RESULTS: We find that both gene-based and k-mer based classifiers had similarly high performances for risk prediction and a markedly lower performance for relapse prediction. Interestingly, the reference-free signatures included a set of sequences mapping to novel lncRNAs or variable regions of cancer driver genes that were not part of gene-based signatures. CONCLUSIONS: Reference-free classifiers are thus a promising strategy for the identification of novel prognostic RNA biomarkers.
BACKGROUND: RNA-seq data are increasingly used to derive prognostic signatures for cancer outcome prediction. A limitation of current predictors is their reliance on reference gene annotations, which amounts to ignoring large numbers of non-canonical RNAs produced in disease tissues. A recently introduced kind of transcriptome classifier operates entirely in a reference-free manner, relying on k-mers extracted from patient RNA-seq data. METHODS: In this paper, we set out to compare conventional and reference-free signatures in risk and relapse prediction of prostate cancer. To compare the two approaches as fairly as possible, we set up a common procedure that takes as input either a k-mer count matrix or a gene expression matrix, extracts a signature and evaluates this signature in an independent dataset. RESULTS: We find that both gene-based and k-mer based classifiers had similarly high performances for risk prediction and a markedly lower performance for relapse prediction. Interestingly, the reference-free signatures included a set of sequences mapping to novel lncRNAs or variable regions of cancer driver genes that were not part of gene-based signatures. CONCLUSIONS: Reference-free classifiers are thus a promising strategy for the identification of novel prognostic RNA biomarkers.
Entities:
Keywords:
Prostate cancer signature; Reference-free transcriptomic; Supervised learning
Authors: Laura J van 't Veer; Hongyue Dai; Marc J van de Vijver; Yudong D He; Augustinus A M Hart; Mao Mao; Hans L Peterse; Karin van der Kooy; Matthew J Marton; Anke T Witteveen; George J Schreiber; Ron M Kerkhoven; Chris Roberts; Peter S Linsley; René Bernards; Stephen H Friend Journal: Nature Date: 2002-01-31 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Qi Long; Jianpeng Xu; Adeboye O Osunkoya; Soma Sannigrahi; Brent A Johnson; Wei Zhou; Theresa Gillespie; Jong Y Park; Robert K Nam; Linda Sugar; Aleksandra Stanimirovic; Arun K Seth; John A Petros; Carlos S Moreno Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2014-04-08 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Kathryn L Penney; Jennifer A Sinnott; Katja Fall; Yudi Pawitan; Yujin Hoshida; Peter Kraft; Jennifer R Stark; Michelangelo Fiorentino; Sven Perner; Stephen Finn; Stefano Calza; Richard Flavin; Matthew L Freedman; Sunita Setlur; Howard D Sesso; Swen-Olof Andersson; Neil Martin; Philip W Kantoff; Jan-Erik Johansson; Hans-Olov Adami; Mark A Rubin; Massimo Loda; Todd R Golub; Ove Andrén; Meir J Stampfer; Lorelei A Mucci Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-05-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: C M Perou; T Sørlie; M B Eisen; M van de Rijn; S S Jeffrey; C A Rees; J R Pollack; D T Ross; H Johnsen; L A Akslen; O Fluge; A Pergamenschikov; C Williams; S X Zhu; P E Lønning; A L Børresen-Dale; P O Brown; D Botstein Journal: Nature Date: 2000-08-17 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Jennifer A Sinnott; Sam F Peisch; Svitlana Tyekucheva; Travis Gerke; Rosina Lis; Jennifer R Rider; Michelangelo Fiorentino; Meir J Stampfer; Lorelei A Mucci; Massimo Loda; Kathryn L Penney Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-09-23 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Alain Latil; Ivan Bièche; Laurent Chêne; Ingrid Laurendeau; Philippe Berthon; Olivier Cussenot; Michel Vidaud Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2003-11-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: A V D'Amico; R Whittington; S B Malkowicz; D Schultz; K Blank; G A Broderick; J E Tomaszewski; A A Renshaw; I Kaplan; C J Beard; A Wein Journal: JAMA Date: 1998-09-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Dinesh Singh; Phillip G Febbo; Kenneth Ross; Donald G Jackson; Judith Manola; Christine Ladd; Pablo Tamayo; Andrew A Renshaw; Anthony V D'Amico; Jerome P Richie; Eric S Lander; Massimo Loda; Philip W Kantoff; Todd R Golub; William R Sellers Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Min A Jhun; Milan S Geybels; Jonathan L Wright; Suzanne Kolb; Craig April; Marina Bibikova; Elaine A Ostrander; Jian-Bing Fan; Ziding Feng; Janet L Stanford Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2017-06-27
Authors: Zhuofan Mou; Jack Spencer; Bridget Knight; Joseph John; Paul McCullagh; John S McGrath; Lorna W Harries Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-08-12 Impact factor: 5.738