Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30704474›Full record

ArticleBMC medical genomics2019

Selecting precise reference normal tissue samples for cancer research using a deep learning approach.

William Z D Zeng, Benjamin S Glicksberg, Yangyan Li, Bin Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical genomics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A novel methylation marker on theFrontiers in oncology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors.

William Z D ZengInstitute for Computational Health Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Benjamin S GlicksbergInstitute for Computational Health Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Yangyan LiShandong University, Qingdao, Shandong, China.
Bin ChenInstitute for Computational Health Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. bin.chen@hc.msu.edu.

Funding

Integrating transcriptomic, proteomic and pharmacogenomic data to inform individualized therapy in cancersK01ES028047 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI CHEN, BIN · 2017 to 2020
$682k
Targeting glucose metabolism for the treatment of Hepatocellular CarcinomaR21TR001743 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI CHEN, BIN · 2017 to 2018
$560k
NCATS NIH HHS R21 TR001743NIEHS NIH HHS K01 ES028047
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNormal tissue samples are often employed as a control for understanding disease mechanisms, however, collecting matched normal tissues from patients is difficult in many instances. In cancer research, for example, the open cancer resources such as TCGA and TARGET do not provide matched tissue samples for every cancer or cancer subtype. The recent GTEx project has profiled samples from healthy individuals, providing an excellent resource for this field, yet the feasibility of using GTEx samples as the reference remains unanswered.

methodsWe analyze RNA-Seq data processed from the same computational pipeline and systematically evaluate GTEx as a potential reference resource. We use those cancers that have adjacent normal tissues in TCGA as a benchmark for the evaluation. To correlate tumor samples and normal samples, we explore top varying genes, reduced features from principal component analysis, and encoded features from an autoencoder neural network. We first evaluate whether these methods can identify the correct tissue of origin from GTEx for a given cancer and then seek to answer whether disease expression signatures are consistent between those derived from TCGA and from GTEx.

resultsAmong 32 TCGA cancers, 18 cancers have less than 10 matched adjacent normal tissue samples. Among three methods, autoencoder performed the best in predicting tissue of origin, with 12 of 14 cancers correctly predicted. The reason for misclassification of two cancers is that none of normal samples from GTEx correlate well with any tumor samples in these cancers. This suggests that GTEx has matched tissues for the majority cancers, but not all. While using autoencoder to select proper normal samples for disease signature creation, we found that disease signatures derived from normal samples selected via an autoencoder from GTEx are consistent with those derived from adjacent samples from TCGA in many cases. Interestingly, choosing top 50 mostly correlated samples regardless of tissue type performed reasonably well or even better in some cancers.

conclusionsOur findings demonstrate that samples from GTEx can serve as reference normal samples for cancers, especially those do not have available adjacent tissue samples. A deep-learning based approach holds promise to select proper normal samples.

Indexed as

Deep LearningHumansNeoplasmsNeural Networks, ComputerReference ValuesRNA-SeqAutoencoderDeep learningDisease signaturesDrug repositioning

Identifiers

PMID30704474
PMCPMC6357350

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.