Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23937249›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2013

Group sparse canonical correlation analysis for genomic data integration.

Dongdong Lin, Jigang Zhang, Jingyao Li, Vince D Calhoun, Hong-Wen Deng, Yu-Ping Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Integrative Analysis of Multimodal Omics Data.Annual review of statistics and its application · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. On statistical inference with high-dimensional sparse CCA.Information and inference : a journal of the IMA · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Dongdong LinBiomedical Engineering Department, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Jigang Zhang
Jingyao Li
Vince D Calhoun
Hong-Wen Deng
Yu-Ping Wang

Funding

Epigenomewide DNA Methylation Study for Osteoporosis RiskR01AR059781 · NIAMS · TULANE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA · PI DENG, HONG-WEN · 2012 to 2016
$3.1M
Identification of Proteins Important for Male OsteoporosisR01AR057049 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI KANSAS CITY · PI DENG, HONG-WEN · 2009 to 2013
$2.4M
Integration of multiscale genomic data for comprehensive analysis of complex diseR01GM109068 · NIGMS · TULANE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA · PI WANG, YU-PING · 2014 to 2018
$1.6M
A New Paradigm for Integrated Analysis of Multiscale Genomic Imaging DatasetsR21LM010042 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI KANSAS CITY · PI WANG, YU-PING · 2009 to 2010
$406k
NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR057049NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR059781NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM109068NLM NIH HHS R21 LM010042
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe emergence of high-throughput genomic datasets from different sources and platforms (e.g., gene expression, single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP), and copy number variation (CNV)) has greatly enhanced our understandings of the interplay of these genomic factors as well as their influences on the complex diseases. It is challenging to explore the relationship between these different types of genomic data sets. In this paper, we focus on a multivariate statistical method, canonical correlation analysis (CCA) method for this problem. Conventional CCA method does not work effectively if the number of data samples is significantly less than that of biomarkers, which is a typical case for genomic data (e.g., SNPs). Sparse CCA (sCCA) methods were introduced to overcome such difficulty, mostly using penalizations with l-1 norm (CCA-l1) or the combination of l-1and l-2 norm (CCA-elastic net). However, they overlook the structural or group effect within genomic data in the analysis, which often exist and are important (e.g., SNPs spanning a gene interact and work together as a group).

resultsWe propose a new group sparse CCA method (CCA-sparse group) along with an effective numerical algorithm to study the mutual relationship between two different types of genomic data (i.e., SNP and gene expression). We then extend the model to a more general formulation that can include the existing sCCA models. We apply the model to feature/variable selection from two data sets and compare our group sparse CCA method with existing sCCA methods on both simulation and two real datasets (human gliomas data and NCI60 data). We use a graphical representation of the samples with a pair of canonical variates to demonstrate the discriminating characteristic of the selected features. Pathway analysis is further performed for biological interpretation of those features.

conclusionsThe CCA-sparse group method incorporates group effects of features into the correlation analysis while performs individual feature selection simultaneously. It outperforms the two sCCA methods (CCA-l1 and CCA-group) by identifying the correlated features with more true positives while controlling total discordance at a lower level on the simulated data, even if the group effect does not exist or there are irrelevant features grouped with true correlated features. Compared with our proposed CCA-group sparse models, CCA-l1 tends to select less true correlated features while CCA-group inclines to select more redundant features.

Indexed as

Genome, HumanSystems IntegrationAlgorithmsDNA Copy Number VariationsGenetic MarkersGenome-Wide Association StudyGenomicsHumansPolymorphism, Single NucleotideGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID23937249
PMCPMC3751310

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.