Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26545828›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2015

Practical impacts of genomic data "cleaning" on biological discovery using surrogate variable analysis.

Andrew E Jaffe, Thomas Hyde, Joel Kleinman, Daniel R Weinbergern, Joshua G Chenoweth, Ronald D McKay, Jeffrey T Leek, Carlo Colantuoni

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Perspectives for better batch effect correction in mass-spectrometry-based proteomics.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2022
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Andrew E JaffeLieber Institute for Brain Development, 855 N Wolfe St, Ste 300, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. andrew.jaffe@libd.org.
Thomas HydeLieber Institute for Brain Development, 855 N Wolfe St, Ste 300, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. Thomas.Hyde@libd.org.
Joel KleinmanLieber Institute for Brain Development, 855 N Wolfe St, Ste 300, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. Joel.Kleinman@libd.org.
Daniel R WeinbergernLieber Institute for Brain Development, 855 N Wolfe St, Ste 300, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. drweinberger@libd.org.
Joshua G ChenowethLieber Institute for Brain Development, 855 N Wolfe St, Ste 300, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. josh.chenoweth@libd.org.
Ronald D McKayLieber Institute for Brain Development, 855 N Wolfe St, Ste 300, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. ronald.mckay@libd.org.
Jeffrey T LeekDepartment of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. ljeek@jhsph.edu.
Carlo ColantuoniLieber Institute for Brain Development, 855 N Wolfe St, Ste 300, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. carlo.colantuoni@libd.org.

Funding

Institute for Clinical and Translational ResearchUL1TR001079 · NCATS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI FORD, DANIEL ERNEST · 2013 to 2017
$60.1M
Statistical models for biological and technical variation in RNA sequencingR01GM105705 · NIGMS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI LEEK, JEFFREY T. · 2013 to 2017
$1.5M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001079NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM105705NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM105705-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenomic data production is at its highest level and continues to increase, making available novel primary data and existing public data to researchers for exploration. Here we explore the consequences of "batch" correction for biological discovery in two publicly available expression datasets. We consider this to include the estimation of and adjustment for wide-spread systematic heterogeneity in genomic measurements that is unrelated to the effects under study, whether it be technical or biological in nature.

methodsWe present three illustrative data analyses using surrogate variable analysis (SVA) and describe how to perform artifact discovery in light of natural heterogeneity within biological groups, secondary biological questions of interest, and non-linear treatment effects in a dataset profiling differentiating pluripotent cells (GSE32923) and another from human brain tissue (GSE30272).

resultsCareful specification of biological effects of interest is very important to factor-based approaches like SVA. We demonstrate greatly sharpened global and gene-specific differential expression across treatment groups in stem cell systems. Similarly, we demonstrate how to preserve major non-linear effects of age across the lifespan in the brain dataset. However, the gains in precisely defining known effects of interest come at the cost of much other information in the "cleaned" data, including sex, common copy number effects and sample or cell line-specific molecular behavior.

conclusionsOur analyses indicate that data "cleaning" can be an important component of high-throughput genomic data analysis when interrogating explicitly defined effects in the context of data affected by robust technical artifacts. However, caution should be exercised to avoid removing biological signal of interest. It is also important to note that open data exploration is not possible after such supervised "cleaning", because effects beyond those stipulated by the researcher may have been removed. With the goal of making these statistical algorithms more powerful and transparent to researchers in the biological sciences, we provide exploratory plots and accompanying R code for identifying and guiding "cleaning" process (https://github.com/andrewejaffe/StemCellSVA). The impact of these methods is significant enough that we have made newly processed data available for the brain data set at http://braincloud.jhmi.edu/plots/ and GSE30272.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsGenome, HumanArtifactsBrainCell DifferentiationComputational BiologyGene Expression ProfilingGenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansPluripotent Stem CellsRegression Analysis

Identifiers

PMID26545828
PMCPMC4636836

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.