Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27535232›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2016

Topic model-based mass spectrometric data analysis in cancer biomarker discovery studies.

Minkun Wang, Tsung-Heng Tsai, Cristina Di Poto, Alessia Ferrarini, Guoqiang Yu, Habtom W Ressom

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 35% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Minkun WangDepartment of Oncology, Georgetown University, 4000 Reservoir Rd NW, Washington D.C., USA.
Tsung-Heng TsaiDepartment of Oncology, Georgetown University, 4000 Reservoir Rd NW, Washington D.C., USA.
Cristina Di PotoDepartment of Oncology, Georgetown University, 4000 Reservoir Rd NW, Washington D.C., USA.
Alessia FerrariniDepartment of Oncology, Georgetown University, 4000 Reservoir Rd NW, Washington D.C., USA.
Guoqiang YuDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Virginia Tech, 900 N Glebe Rd, Arlington, VA, USA.
Habtom W RessomDepartment of Oncology, Georgetown University, 4000 Reservoir Rd NW, Washington D.C., USA. hwr@georgetown.edu.
Georgetown University · USVirginia Tech · US

Funding

Tissue Culture Shared ResourceP30CA051008 · NCI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI STEPHEN W BYERS · 1990 to 2026
$71.5M
Analysis of Racial Disparities in HCC by Systems MetabolomicsU01CA185188 · NCI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI RESSOM, HABTOM W · 2015 to 2019
$1.7M
Quantitative analysis of LC-MS data for peptide and glycan biomarker discoveryR01GM086746 · NIGMS · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI RESSOM, HABTOM W · 2010 to 2014
$1.3M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA051008NCI NIH HHS U01 CA185188NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM086746
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA fundamental challenge in quantitation of biomolecules for cancer biomarker discovery is owing to the heterogeneous nature of human biospecimens. Although this issue has been a subject of discussion in cancer genomic studies, it has not yet been rigorously investigated in mass spectrometry based proteomic and metabolomic studies. Purification of mass spectometric data is highly desired prior to subsequent analysis, e.g., quantitative comparison of the abundance of biomolecules in biological samples.

methodsWe investigated topic models to computationally analyze mass spectrometric data considering both integrated peak intensities and scan-level features, i.e., extracted ion chromatograms (EICs). Probabilistic generative models enable flexible representation in data structure and infer sample-specific pure resources. Scan-level modeling helps alleviate information loss during data preprocessing. We evaluated the capability of the proposed models in capturing mixture proportions of contaminants and cancer profiles on LC-MS based serum proteomic and GC-MS based tissue metabolomic datasets acquired from patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and liver cirrhosis as well as synthetic data we generated based on the serum proteomic data.

resultsThe results we obtained by analysis of the synthetic data demonstrated that both intensity-level and scan-level purification models can accurately infer the mixture proportions and the underlying true cancerous sources with small average error ratios (<7 %) between estimation and ground truth. By applying the topic model-based purification to mass spectrometric data, we found more proteins and metabolites with significant changes between HCC cases and cirrhotic controls. Candidate biomarkers selected after purification yielded biologically meaningful pathway analysis results and improved disease discrimination power in terms of the area under ROC curve compared to the results found prior to purification.

conclusionsWe investigated topic model-based inference methods to computationally address the heterogeneity issue in samples analyzed by LC/GC-MS. We observed that incorporation of scan-level features have the potential to lead to more accurate purification results by alleviating the loss in information as a result of integrating peaks. We believe cancer biomarker discovery studies that use mass spectrometric analysis of human biospecimens can greatly benefit from topic model-based purification of the data prior to statistical and pathway analyses.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorCarcinoma, HepatocellularHumansLiver CirrhosisLiver NeoplasmsMass SpectrometryMetabolomicsNeoplasmsProteomicsBiomarkers, TumorBayesian inferenceBiomarker discoveryExtracted ion chromatogramGC-MSLC-MSMetabolomicsProteomicsPurificationTopic model

Identifiers

PMID27535232
PMCPMC5001243
OpenAlexW2515965061

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.