Literature DB >> 36155971

A Deep Survival EWAS approach estimating risk profile based on pre-diagnostic DNA methylation: An application to breast cancer time to diagnosis.

Michela Carlotta Massi1,2, Lorenzo Dominoni2, Francesca Ieva1,2, Giovanni Fiorito3.   

Abstract

Previous studies for cancer biomarker discovery based on pre-diagnostic blood DNA methylation (DNAm) profiles, either ignore the explicit modeling of the Time To Diagnosis (TTD), or provide inconsistent results. This lack of consistency is likely due to the limitations of standard EWAS approaches, that model the effect of DNAm at CpG sites on TTD independently. In this work, we aim to identify blood DNAm profiles associated with TTD, with the aim to improve the reliability of the results, as well as their biological meaningfulness. We argue that a global approach to estimate CpG sites effect profile should capture the complex (potentially non-linear) relationships interplaying between sites. To prove our concept, we develop a new Deep Learning-based approach assessing the relevance of individual CpG Islands (i.e., assigning a weight to each site) in determining TTD while modeling their combined effect in a survival analysis scenario. The algorithm combines a tailored sampling procedure with DNAm sites agglomeration, deep non-linear survival modeling and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) values estimation to aid robustness of the derived effects profile. The proposed approach deals with the common complexities arising from epidemiological studies, such as small sample size, noise, and low signal-to-noise ratio of blood-derived DNAm. We apply our approach to a prospective case-control study on breast cancer nested in the EPIC Italy cohort and we perform weighted gene-set enrichment analyses to demonstrate the biological meaningfulness of the obtained results. We compared the results of Deep Survival EWAS with those of a traditional EWAS approach, demonstrating that our method performs better than the standard approach in identifying biologically relevant pathways.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 36155971      PMCID: PMC9536632          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009959

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol        ISSN: 1553-734X            Impact factor:   4.779


  40 in total

1.  From Local Explanations to Global Understanding with Explainable AI for Trees.

Authors:  Scott M Lundberg; Gabriel Erion; Hugh Chen; Alex DeGrave; Jordan M Prutkin; Bala Nair; Ronit Katz; Jonathan Himmelfarb; Nisha Bansal; Su-In Lee
Journal:  Nat Mach Intell       Date:  2020-01-17

2.  Weighted Kolmogorov Smirnov testing: an alternative for Gene Set Enrichment Analysis.

Authors:  Konstantina Charmpi; Bernard Ycart
Journal:  Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol       Date:  2015-06

Review 3.  Methodological challenges in constructing DNA methylation risk scores.

Authors:  Anke Hüls; Darina Czamara
Journal:  Epigenetics       Date:  2019-07-22       Impact factor: 4.528

4.  Pre-diagnostic DNA methylation patterns differ according to mammographic breast density amongst women who subsequently develop breast cancer: a case-only study in the EPIC-Florence cohort.

Authors:  Saverio Caini; Giovanni Fiorito; Domenico Palli; Benedetta Bendinelli; Silvia Polidoro; Valentina Silvestri; Laura Ottini; Daniela Ambrogetti; Ines Zanna; Calogero Saieva; Giovanna Masala
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021-06-08       Impact factor: 4.872

5.  Smoking-associated DNA methylation markers predict lung cancer incidence.

Authors:  Yan Zhang; Magdeldin Elgizouli; Alexandra Nieters; Hermann Brenner; Ben Schöttker; Bernd Holleczek
Journal:  Clin Epigenetics       Date:  2016-11-25       Impact factor: 6.551

6.  Blood DNA methylation and breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis of four prospective cohort studies.

Authors:  Clara Bodelon; Srikant Ambatipudi; Pierre-Antoine Dugué; Annelie Johansson; Joshua N Sampson; Belynda Hicks; Eric Karlins; Amy Hutchinson; Cyrille Cuenin; Veronique Chajès; Melissa C Southey; Isabelle Romieu; Graham G Giles; Dallas English; Silvia Polidoro; Manuela Assumma; Laura Baglietto; Paolo Vineis; Gianluca Severi; Zdenko Herceg; James M Flanagan; Roger L Milne; Montserrat Garcia-Closas
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2019-05-17       Impact factor: 6.466

7.  In Epigenomic Studies, Including Cell-Type Adjustments in Regression Models Can Introduce Multicollinearity, Resulting in Apparent Reversal of Direction of Association.

Authors:  Sheila J Barton; Phillip E Melton; Philip Titcombe; Robert Murray; Sebastian Rauschert; Karen A Lillycrop; Rae-Chi Huang; Joanna D Holbrook; Keith M Godfrey
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2019-09-10       Impact factor: 4.599

8.  DNA Methylation Markers for Pan-Cancer Prediction by Deep Learning.

Authors:  Biao Liu; Yulu Liu; Xingxin Pan; Mengyao Li; Shuang Yang; Shuai Cheng Li
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2019-10-04       Impact factor: 4.096

9.  DNA methylation arrays as surrogate measures of cell mixture distribution.

Authors:  Eugene Andres Houseman; William P Accomando; Devin C Koestler; Brock C Christensen; Carmen J Marsit; Heather H Nelson; John K Wiencke; Karl T Kelsey
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2012-05-08       Impact factor: 3.169

10.  A molecular epidemiology project on diet and cancer: the EPIC-Italy Prospective Study. Design and baseline characteristics of participants.

Authors:  Domenico Palli; Franco Berrino; Paolo Vineis; Rosario Tumino; Salvatore Panico; Giovanna Masala; Calogero Saieva; Simonetta Salvini; Marco Ceroti; Valeria Pala; Sabina Sieri; Graziella Frasca; Maria Concetta Giurdanella; Carlotta Sacerdote; Laura Fiorini; Egidio Celentano; Rocco Galasso; Adriano Decarli; Vittorio Krogh
Journal:  Tumori       Date:  2003 Nov-Dec
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.