Kath Nicholls1, Chris Wallace1,2. 1. Cambridge Institute for Therapeutic Immunology and Infectious Disease, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0AW, UK. 2. MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK.
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Gene clustering and sample clustering are commonly used to find patterns in gene expression datasets. However, genes may cluster differently in heterogeneous samples (e.g. different tissues or disease states), whilst traditional methods assume that clusters are consistent across samples. Biclustering algorithms aim to solve this issue by performing sample clustering and gene clustering simultaneously. Existing reviews of biclustering algorithms have yet to include a number of more recent algorithms and have based comparisons on simplistic simulated datasets without specific evaluation of biclusters in real datasets, using less robust metrics. RESULTS: We compared four classes of sparse biclustering algorithms on a range of simulated and real datasets. All algorithms generally struggled on simulated datasets with a large number of genes or implanted biclusters. We found that Bayesian algorithms with strict sparsity constraints had high accuracy on the simulated datasets and did not require any post-processing, but were considerably slower than other algorithm classes. We found that non-negative matrix factorisation algorithms performed poorly, but could be re-purposed for biclustering through a sparsity-inducing post-processing procedure we introduce; one such algorithm was one of the most highly ranked on real datasets. In a multi-tissue knockout mouse RNA-seq dataset, the algorithms rarely returned clusters containing samples from multiple different tissues, whilst such clusters were identified in a human dataset of more closely related cell types (sorted blood cell subsets). This highlights the need for further thought in the design and analysis of multi-tissue studies to avoid differences between tissues dominating the analysis. AVAILABILITY: Code to run the analysis is available at https://github.com/nichollskc/biclust_comp, including wrappers for each algorithm, implementations of evaluation metrics, and code to simulate datasets and perform pre- and post-processing. The full tables of results are available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4581206.
MOTIVATION: Gene clustering and sample clustering are commonly used to find patterns in gene expression datasets. However, genes may cluster differently in heterogeneous samples (e.g. different tissues or disease states), whilst traditional methods assume that clusters are consistent across samples. Biclustering algorithms aim to solve this issue by performing sample clustering and gene clustering simultaneously. Existing reviews of biclustering algorithms have yet to include a number of more recent algorithms and have based comparisons on simplistic simulated datasets without specific evaluation of biclusters in real datasets, using less robust metrics. RESULTS: We compared four classes of sparse biclustering algorithms on a range of simulated and real datasets. All algorithms generally struggled on simulated datasets with a large number of genes or implanted biclusters. We found that Bayesian algorithms with strict sparsity constraints had high accuracy on the simulated datasets and did not require any post-processing, but were considerably slower than other algorithm classes. We found that non-negative matrix factorisation algorithms performed poorly, but could be re-purposed for biclustering through a sparsity-inducing post-processing procedure we introduce; one such algorithm was one of the most highly ranked on real datasets. In a multi-tissue knockout mouse RNA-seq dataset, the algorithms rarely returned clusters containing samples from multiple different tissues, whilst such clusters were identified in a human dataset of more closely related cell types (sorted blood cell subsets). This highlights the need for further thought in the design and analysis of multi-tissue studies to avoid differences between tissues dominating the analysis. AVAILABILITY: Code to run the analysis is available at https://github.com/nichollskc/biclust_comp, including wrappers for each algorithm, implementations of evaluation metrics, and code to simulate datasets and perform pre- and post-processing. The full tables of results are available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4581206.
Authors: Alberto Pascual-Montano; J M Carazo; Kieko Kochi; Dietrich Lehmann; Roberto D Pascual-Marqui Journal: IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 6.226
Authors: T R Golub; D K Slonim; P Tamayo; C Huard; M Gaasenbeek; J P Mesirov; H Coller; M L Loh; J R Downing; M A Caligiuri; C D Bloomfield; E S Lander Journal: Science Date: 1999-10-15 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Victoria Hore; Ana Viñuela; Alfonso Buil; Julian Knight; Mark I McCarthy; Kerrin Small; Jonathan Marchini Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Gautier Koscielny; Gagarine Yaikhom; Vivek Iyer; Terrence F Meehan; Hugh Morgan; Julian Atienza-Herrero; Andrew Blake; Chao-Kung Chen; Richard Easty; Armida Di Fenza; Tanja Fiegel; Mark Grifiths; Alan Horne; Natasha A Karp; Natalja Kurbatova; Jeremy C Mason; Peter Matthews; Darren J Oakley; Asfand Qazi; Jack Regnart; Ahmad Retha; Luis A Santos; Duncan J Sneddon; Jonathan Warren; Henrik Westerberg; Robert J Wilson; David G Melvin; Damian Smedley; Steve D M Brown; Paul Flicek; William C Skarnes; Ann-Marie Mallon; Helen Parkinson Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2013-11-04 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: M Ramkumar; N Basker; D Pradeep; Ramesh Prajapati; N Yuvaraj; R Arshath Raja; C Suresh; Rahul Vignesh; U Barakkath Nisha; K Srihari; Assefa Alene Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2022-02-22 Impact factor: 3.411