# The characteristic direction: a geometrical approach to identify differentially expressed genes

- Neil R Clark
^{1}, - Kevin S Hu
^{1}, - Axel S Feldmann
^{1}, - Yan Kou
^{1}, - Edward Y Chen
^{1}, - Qiaonan Duan
^{1}and - Avi Ma’ayan
^{1}Email author

**15**:79

https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-15-79

© Clark et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

**Received:**21 November 2013**Accepted:**11 March 2014**Published:**21 March 2014

## Abstract

### Background

Identifying differentially expressed genes (DEG) is a fundamental step in studies that perform genome wide expression profiling. Typically, DEG are identified by univariate approaches such as Significance Analysis of Microarrays (SAM) or Linear Models for Microarray Data (LIMMA) for processing cDNA microarrays, and differential gene expression analysis based on the negative binomial distribution (DESeq) or Empirical analysis of Digital Gene Expression data in R (edgeR) for RNA-seq profiling.

### Results

Here we present a new geometrical multivariate approach to identify DEG called the Characteristic Direction. We demonstrate that the Characteristic Direction method is significantly more sensitive than existing methods for identifying DEG in the context of transcription factor (TF) and drug perturbation responses over a large number of microarray experiments. We also benchmarked the Characteristic Direction method using synthetic data, as well as RNA-Seq data. A large collection of microarray expression data from TF perturbations (73 experiments) and drug perturbations (130 experiments) extracted from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO), as well as an RNA-Seq study that profiled genome-wide gene expression and STAT3 DNA binding in two subtypes of diffuse large B-cell Lymphoma, were used for benchmarking the method using real data. ChIP-Seq data identifying DNA binding sites of the perturbed TFs, as well as known drug targets of the perturbing drugs, were used as prior knowledge silver-standard for validation. In all cases the Characteristic Direction DEG calling method outperformed other methods. We find that when drugs are applied to cells in various contexts, the proteins that interact with the drug-targets are differentially expressed and more of the corresponding genes are discovered by the Characteristic Direction method. In addition, we show that the Characteristic Direction conceptualization can be used to perform improved gene set enrichment analyses when compared with the gene-set enrichment analysis (GSEA) and the hypergeometric test.

### Conclusions

The application of the Characteristic Direction method may shed new light on relevant biological mechanisms that would have remained undiscovered by the current state-of-the-art DEG methods. The method is freely accessible via various open source code implementations using four popular programming languages: R, Python, MATLAB and Mathematica, all available at: http://www.maayanlab.net/CD.

## Keywords

- Gene Ontology
- Synthetic Data
- Differentially Express Gene
- Characteristic Direction
- Random Subspace

## Background

Genome-wide transcriptional profiling, the parallel measurement of the expression of tens of thousands of genes, is a powerful tool which, for example, aids in the development of clinical biomarkers for disease diagnosis, reveals the heterogeneity of histologically identical cancers, and sheds light on diverse biological mechanisms. After estimating the relative or absolute expression level of all transcripts, the next step is to test statistical hypotheses [1]. Typically, these hypotheses are concerned with the difference between two biological conditions, for example, normal verses diseased tissue, or perturbed verses unperturbed cells. One of the most important aims of such tests is to identify the genes which are mostly responsible for the difference between the biological states under investigation, the so called differentially expressed genes (DEG).

There have been a number of attempts to apply multivariate analyses to identify DEG [8, 9]. For example, Lu et al. [10] proposed an application of Hotellings *T*^{2} test, which is a multivariate generalization of Welsh’s t-test. However, these approaches remain little-used because they are sensitive to the fact that typically microarray or RNA-Seq gene expression profiles have fewer samples than genes. A small sample size compared to the dimensionality of the measured variables brings difficulties to the analysis [11]. A significant step towards the resolution of such problems was the realization that variance shrinkage improves statistical power [5, 12, 13]. Also, methods that directly attempt to identify differentially expressed gene-sets as opposed to individual genes have been developed [14–19]. In addition, to increase statistical power, these approaches also attempt to facilitate biological interpretation, which can be challenging when faced with a long list of DEG [15, 20].

There are currently two main principle technologies to perform whole-genome transcriptional profiling: microarrays and RNA-Seq. The later has a number of advantages such as greater dynamic range, and an ability to measure previously unknown transcripts. The RNA-Seq technology also presents some challenges such as potential non-uniform read coverage and transcript length biases, and recently there has been a flurry of publications approaching these important issues [21–24]. One of the differences between microarray and RNA-Seq data is that microarrays result in continuous measures of expression, often log-normally distributed, whereas RNA-Seq data results in positive integer read counts with discrete probability distributions. For this reason, established methods of differential expression analysis for microarray data are not immediately transferable to RNA-Seq data but this challenge can be overcome as demonstrated by Soneson et al. [25] who showed how to transform RNA-Seq counts to continuous values. The approach we shall take here relies on minimal assumptions about the distributions of the data and should apply to RNA-Seq, microarray or any other similar situation where the dimensionality of the data far exceeds the sample size.

We propose a new multivariate approach called the Characteristic Direction which is better able to identify DEG than univariate approaches including the methods: fold change, SAM, the Welch’s t test, LIMMA and DESeq. Our approach naturally incorporates a regularization scheme to deal with the problem of dimensionality, and also provides an intuitive geometrical picture of differential expression in terms of a single direction. We show how this geometrical picture reliably characterizes the differential expression and also leads to some natural extensions of the approach such as improved gene-set enrichment analysis. In addition, we take advantage of a neat mathematical trick to make the Characteristic Direction method fast to compute.

Apart from being able to assess the analysis methods, these results are interesting in themselves as they show that we are able to infer information about TF and drug perturbations from expression data. For example, we find that proteins that are known to interact with the TFs and the drug targets tend to be also within the DEG. Finally, we show how a natural extension of the Characteristic Direction method can be used to perform potentially improved gene-set enrichment analysis. We compared enriched terms for DEG identified in human cancer stem cells and show that the Characteristic Direction enrichment method recovers more relevant Gene Ontology (GO) terms as compared with GO terms recovered by the hypergeometric test, or GSEA.

## Methods

### Computing the characteristic direction and identifying differentially expressed genes

Classification approaches, for example those that predict clinical outcome from gene expression data, are inherently multivariate as they use the structure of the gene expression profiles as a whole in order to distinguish between biological conditions or classes. Our approach is to repurpose linear classification methods in order to characterize differential expression and identify DEG. We use a linear classification scheme, which defines a separating hyper-plane; the orientation of which we show can be interpreted to identify DEG. We also find that the direction normal to the separating hyper-plane provides a simple geometrical conceptualization of the differential expression, which naturally leads to extensions of the approach, such as a new formulation of gene set enrichment analysis.

*N*, in which the expression of

*p*genes is measured, and then let each expression profile sample form a row of the matrix X (a

*N*×

*p*matrix). For generality at this point we shall consider the case where each of the expression samples comes from one of

*K*classes belonging to the set

*G*. In linear discriminant analysis (LDA) the log-ratio of class posteriors

*P*(

*G*|

*X*), is written as follows (see Additional file 1 for a derivation),

*π*

_{ k }, is the class mean, and it is assumed that both classes have the same covariance matrix, Σ. Then the orientation of the separating hyper-plane (between classes

*k*and

*l*) is defined by the normal

*p*-vector, in the third term on the right hand side, that we label

*b*,

The estimation, from the data, of the terms in this equation is explained in the Additional file 1. Below we will interpret the direction of the *p*-vector, *b*, as the direction in expression space that best characterizes the differential expression, and show how the components of this vector can be used to identify differentially expressed genes. However, first we note a few potential issues: the calculation involves the inverse of a very large *p* × *p* matrix which is not only expensive to compute but also the elements must be estimated from a relatively small sample-size (*p* >> *N*), which means that the matrix is singular and this leads to large variance in the results even when using the generalized inverse.

where $\widehat{\mathit{\Sigma}}$ is the estimated covariance matrix, and *σ*^{2} is the scalar covariance (see Additional file 1 for elaboration). The inclusion of a constant on the diagonal resolves the singularity problem, and the modulation of the off-diagonal terms helps to reduce noise arising from the estimation of covariance from few samples.

Then the contribution of each ${\widehat{\mathit{b}}}_{1}^{2}$ to this sum can be interpreted as quantifying the relative contribution of each component to the total differential expression giving the significance of the corresponding gene. The above interpretation provides a quantitative measure of the relative, but not absolute, significance of each gene to the differential expression, and as such can be used to rank the genes in order of significance. However, we also want to identify a shortlist of significant DEGs. This could be done completely within the framework we have outlined by using a *L*_{1} regularization scheme in place of that used in the shrinkage equation above; such a penalty results in automatic feature selection because many components fall to zero; the genes corresponding to the features retained would then comprise the DEGs. An alternative method to deriving a significance threshold is described below.

### Generating synthetic data

We generate synthetic normalized expression data which incorporates multivariate structure. The multivariate structure of real biological expression data is not fully known, we therefore use a simple approach which incorporates some of the best established properties of such data: 1) large number of features (genes) with a relatively small number of samples; 2) significant dependencies between the expression levels of the genes, leading to dimensionality which is much smaller than the number of features. In addition to these properties we require control over the number and identity of genes which are differentially expressed between two datasets. There are a number of ways that datasets with these properties may be generated, but we chose the simplest, with the fewest free parameters. In a nutshell, we use a multi-variate normal distribution distributed throughout a random subspace of the full expression space, the dimension of which reflects the dimension of the dataset. By ensuring that this subspace spans a predefined vector of differentially expressed genes we can perturb the mean of the normal distribution, preserving the covariance matrix, to generate data with pre-defined differentially expressed genes. An explicit description of the algorithm follows:

*p*, the total number of differentially expressed genes,

*n*

_{ d }, the dimension of the data sets,

*D*, the number of samples in each class,

*N*, and a scale parameter which controls the magnitude of the difference between the “control” and “perturbed” data sets, Δ. First we determine which genes are to be differentially expressed and in which direction – this is done by generating a random unit

*p*-vector with

*n*

_{ d }non-zero components, corresponding to the differentially expressed genes. We refer to this vector as $\widehat{\mathit{m}}$. This vector, when normalized, provides the seed for the generation of a set of

*D*isotropic random orthonormal vectors which provide a basis for a random subspace of expression space. This is generated by iteratively generating a random isotopic vector

*b*

_{ i }at step

*i*, then calculating that part of

*b*

_{ i }which is parallel to the subspace spanned by the previously generated vectors {

*b*

_{ j }|

*j*<

*i*},

*b*

_{ i }, resulting in a new vector which is perpendicular to the previous members of the set; this is normalized before being included in the set and moving on to the next iteration. The result is a set of orthonormal basis vectors for an isotropic subspace of dimension

*D*which also includes the pre-defined vector of differentially expressed genes. For each class: “control” and “perturbed” we next generate random data within this subspace by drawing from a multi-dimensional normal distribution. To do this we must first define the mean and covariance matrices for each class. If, for simplicity, we assume linearity, then we may think of our random subspace as being the Principal Component space, and the data should be uncorrelated in this space, so we set the off diagonal elements of the covariance matrix to be zero and it only remains to determine the variances. We do this in such a way as to reflect a general property of biological expression data where the first principal component captures the most variance, and subsequent principal component capture successively smaller variances. We model this property very simply by setting the variance in the

*i*

^{ th }, principal component direction to be equal to

*e*

^{-(i-1)}, such that the variance in the first principal direction is 1, and in the second

*e*

^{-1}etc. We assign the same covariance matrix to both the “control” and “perturbed” samples. We choose the mean of the “control” samples to be zero, and the mean of the “perturbed” samples to reflect the pre-defined differentially expressed genes by setting it equal to $\widehat{\mathit{m}}$ scaled by Δ to control the magnitude of the difference between the “control” and “perturbed” expression data. An illustration of the synthetic data generated in a low-dimensional space with the parameters

*p*= 3,

*n*

_{ d }= 2,

*D*= 2,

*N*= 3, and Δ = 3.0 with gene 1 and 3 chosen to be differentially expressed, is shown in Figure 3. These parameters were chosen to give an impression of the structure of the data in higher dimensions, and to result in a clear difference between the two classes of samples.

### Estimating significant DEG applied to the synthetic data

The Characteristic Direction method is represented by a vector in expression space, each component of which corresponds to a gene. We interpret this vector by taking the square of each component to be a measure of the importance of the corresponding gene in the differential expression; the larger the squared component the more significant the gene. In order to determine the appropriate threshold above which to accept genes as differentially expressed we derive a null distribution for the ranks of the squared components as follows:

*m*

_{0}. We use the following algorithm to generate the null distribution of ranked squared coefficients:

- 1.
Generate two random sample means by drawing from the multivariate student t distribution with

*N*- 1 degrees of freedom and find their difference. - 2.
Calculate the null characteristic direction

*b*_{ null }= Σ^{-1}Δ_{ m } - 3.
Calculate ${\mathit{b}}_{\mathit{null}}^{2}$ and rank the components into descending order of magnitude

- 4.Repeat steps 1–3 100 times, and take the mean, to give${\mathit{b}}_{\mathit{null}}^{2}$

To compare the real distribution the null we take the ratio: ${\mathit{b}}^{2}/{\mathit{b}}_{\mathit{null}}^{2}$. The simplest and most conservative approach would be to accept into the set of differentially expressed genes all those genes for which the ratio: $\frac{{\mathit{b}}^{2}}{{\mathit{b}}_{\mathit{null}}^{2}}>1$. A less conservative method to derive the threshold from the data is to consider the inflection in the curves which can be isolated with the cumulative distributions.

### Performing characteristic direction enrichment analysis

## Results

### Benchmarking the characteristic direction method with transcription factor perturbations followed by microarray genome-wide expression profiling

We collected 73 experiments from GEO (Additional file 1: Table S1) which contain expression data for control verses TF perturbation with at least three biological replicates in each of these classes. The TF perturbations consisted of knockdowns (32), knockouts (29), over-expressions (5), and other types of perturbation (7) such as partial mutations for example. A complete list with the details about these experiments can be found in the Additional file 1. We extracted processed expression values from the SOFT files downloaded from the GEO database. For each experiment, we compared control and perturbed classes with four different methods: the fold change, Welsh’s t test, SAM, and the geometrical approach described above which we shall refer to as the “characteristic direction” approach. Each experiment and method pair resulted in a ranked list of all genes on the particular array chip in order of their estimated significance in the differential expression.

To evaluate the ability of each method to prioritize DEG we used ChIP-Seq data reporting DNA binding sites for the each TF from one of two databases: ChEA [31] and ENCODE [32]. There is little overlap between these databases and so they constitute independent validations (see Additional file 1). Using this data we derived lists of genes which are associated with each TF by the identification that the TF bind to these genes’ promoters. Then, by assuming that genes from these lists are more likely to be regulated by the perturbed TF than the complementary genes, we reasoned that the degree to which an analysis method prioritizes the ChIP-Seq derived genes is a measure of its effectiveness. In addition, in a similar way we used lists of genes/proteins which are known to physically interact with each TF. We reasoned that genes for which their protein product physically interacts with the TF are more likely to be differentially expressed after the TF perturbation. As a final comparison, we examined the priority given to the perturbed TF itself, since it is known that many TF tend to auto-regulate their expression.

*E*

_{ j }, with a total number of genes

*p*

_{ j }, is analyzed for differential expression, according to one of the methods described above, resulting in rankings for each gene which are scaled by

*p*

_{ j }to give

*r*

_{ ji }, the scaled rank of gene

*i*in experiment

*j*, such that a value of

*r*

_{ ji }= 0 is taken by the most significant gene in experiment

*E*

_{ j }and

*r*

_{ ji }= 1 is taken by the least significant gene. For each experiment we have a corresponding subset of genes

*S*

_{ j }which may, for example, consist of genes which are putative target genes of the TF that was knocked down in the specific experiment, as determined by an independent ChIP-Seq experiment. We examine the rankings of the genes

*S*

_{ j }. The set of rank values of the genes

*S*

_{ j }corresponding to experiment

*E*

_{ j }are identified for all

*j*,

*A*, which we label

*D*(

*r*), is examined. If the gene sets

*S*

_{ j }contain genes which are neither preferentially significant or insignificant then we expect a uniform distribution and

Any significant deviation from this indicates that the gene sets are significant in the differential expression analysis, therefore we examine *D*(*r*) - *r* for significant deviations from zero in order to evaluate the various methods. A significant positive value corresponds to the genes in *S*_{
j
} being concentrated at the smaller scaled ranks and therefore having greater significance than a uniform random distribution. The entire process is visualized in Figure 2.

Random fluctuations from zero are to be expected and we can estimate the scale for these fluctuations, *φ*, by a premise similar to that behind the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (see the Additional file 1 for details). When plotting *D*(*r*) - *r* we also include a right-hand scale to the plots which have the values scaled by *φ* to give an impression of how the deviation compares to what might be expected from random fluctuations under the null hypothesis of a uniform distribution of rankings. Values >> 1 on this scale indicate significant non-uniformity in the distribution of ranks.

*D*(

*r*) -

*r*, for each ranking method and each gene list type (Figure 5a-d). Apart from Figure 5a, which shows that all the methods are equally able to identify the TF directly perturbed in each experiment, the relative performance of the methods are quite consistent across the gene lists. The Characteristic Direction method prioritizes genes in the differential expression which are also associated with the perturbed TF in ChIP-Seq data, and also genes which interact with the TF, and it does so to a significantly higher degree than the other methods (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test p values comparing all the distributions can be found in Additional file 1: Tables S3 to S6). Limma is the next best performing method by this measure, followed by SAM and Welsh’s t test. The fold change method does not seem to successfully prioritize the gene list. We also found that the degree of shrinkage has little effect on the rankings generated by the Characteristic Direction approach and thus choose a representative value (

*y*= 1).

### Benchmarking the characteristic direction method with drug perturbations followed by microarray genome-wide expression profiling

Next we collected 130 experiments from GEO (Additional file 1: Table S2) consisting of control verses FDA approved drug perturbed samples, with at least three biological replicates in each sample. The genes were ranked in the same way as in the previous subsection, using the same methods. Due to the different mechanisms of action between TFs and drugs, instead of using ChIP-Seq for validation we assessed the rankings of known drug targets, and separately, genes which are known to have their protein products directly physically interact with those drug targets using known protein-protein interactions available from the NCBI Gene database and drug targets from DrugBank [33]. We assess the prioritization of the genes with the DEG calling methods in the same way as for the TFs otherwise. It should be noted that ChIP-Seq data informs the validation with relatively unbiased and objective data whereas the knowledge of drug targets is rather more biased and incomplete. In addition, it is not known whether targeting a drug target with a drug will alter the mRNA expression of the target. So we do not expect to see the same strength of signal in this form of validation as compared with the validation for TF perturbation followed by expression with ChIP-Seq prior data. The performance of each method seems to be in the same relation as for the TFs, with the characteristic direction giving higher priority to the genes encoding drug targets of the relevant drugs and genes which their products interact with those targets (Figure 5e-f) (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test p-values comparing all the distributions can be found in Additional file 1: Tables S7 and S8).

### Comparing the characteristic direction method to DESeq

### Benchmarking the characteristic direction method with synthetic data

*p*= 10

^{4},

*n*

_{ d }= 2 × 10

^{3}, as these are of the same order of magnitude of whole genome profiles and we used Δ = 0.3 as this resulted in data for which it was not too difficult and not too easy to identify the differentially expressed genes. We repeated each simulation 10 times. We investigated two different values of the sample size (3 and 10) as these are two common sample sizes found in GEO datasets, and we also examined two different values for the dimensionality (10 and 20). The resulting ROC curves show that the characteristic direction outperforms the other methods in recovering the differentially expressed genes from the synthetic data (Figure 7).

### Estimating significant DEG applied to the synthetic data

*s*. which is perpendicular to the diagonal, and plot its value for each of the synthetic datasets (Figure 8d). The peaks of these curves correspond to the inflections in the curves in Figure 8c. Their height indicates the degree of differential expression – values which are a significant fraction of unity indicate a significant differential expression (Figure 8e). Note that this criterion is satisfied by all the synthetic datasets shown with the exception of the dataset with no differentially expressed genes. The position of the peak may also be taken as the threshold for acceptance into the set of differentially expressed genes. Finally, we indicate the position of the thresholds on ROC curves to demonstrate that we have indeed found good thresholds for identifying DEG (Figure 9). The sets of differentially expressed genes thus identified have sensible values of the false and true positive rates while also having the advantage that they are derived from the data itself rather than from the application of an arbitrary threshold.

### Characteristic direction enrichment analysis

In the case study presented in this section we attempt to compare the various biological contexts that emerge when examining differentially expressed genes identified from mRNA profiling of CD44+ CD24-/low breast cancer cells as compared with normal breast epithelium tissue. The data used in this case study for evaluation and validation comes primarily from a study that profiled and compared normal breast epithelium tissue obtained from reduction mammoplasties and highly tumorigenic breast cancer cells isolated from tumors (ESA+ CD44+ CD24-/low Lin-) [35]. The various approaches to identify DEGs from this dataset may provide different pictures of the biological mechanisms which are relevant to the disease. When comparing CD44+ CD24-/low breast cancer stem cells with normal breast epithelium tissue we expect to detect biological processes such as cell motility, cell proliferation, wound healing [36], and extra cellular matrix (ECM) remodeling which are known to be up-regulated in cancer stem cells and are activated in aggressive tumors.

## Discussion and conclusions

We have described a new multivariate approach to differential expression which is better able to identify DEG while also addressing the issues associated with the high dimensionality of expression data. The Characteristic Direction approach uses the orientation of the separating hyperplane from a linear classification scheme, linear discriminant analysis, to define a direction which characterizes the differential expression. This results in a simple, highly-regularized characterization which is appropriate for genome-wide expression analysis. We compared the performance of this approach to established univariate approaches, with real and synthetic data. The validation scheme in the context of TF and drug perturbations is in itself valuable for benchmarking both computational and experimental methods. Extracting a large number of control verses perturbation expression datasets from GEO and prioritizing the genes with the various methods, we were able to show that the Characteristic Direction approach prioritizes genes which are associated with the binding sites of the perturbed TF and targets of drugs respectively; and it does so to significantly greater degree than a selection of popular methods. We took advantage of the opportunity to use independent prior knowledge datasets to validate our method. It is established that binding and unbinding of transcription factors to the promoters of genes is, in general, used for gene expression regulation. However, it is also clear that binding to the promoter does not necessarily result in differential expression. This is especially true when considering different cellular contexts. In most cases of our validation scheme the ChIP and array do not come from the same cell lines. However, there is some correlation/overlap between DEG after TF knockdowns and TF putative binding based on ChIP for the same TF in most cases. We do not know the true positives but we know that more overlap is likely due to a more accurate method to identify the DEG. We name this a silver standard for validation as it is not as good as a gold standard but it is good enough to compare DEG calling methods. The fact that we were able to recover genes associated with the binding sites of the perturbed TF is interesting on its own as it reveals a relation between DNA interactions identified by ChIP-Seq experiments and mRNA levels from expression profiling. Similarly, the ability of the method to identify a clear relationship between drug targets and the differential expression of their interactors in a systematic way is also noteworthy because for many drugs we do not know the targeted pathways while differential expression signatures are readily available. For the RNA-Seq validation we used a single study which compares differential binding of a TF, to differential expression, in the context of high-throughput sequencing. We found a stronger apparent relationship between differential binding and differential expression when using the Characteristic Direction approach as compared to the DESeq method. Like all statistical methods, the Characteristic Direction method works best when there are many repeats of the same condition. In principle, the method requires at least two repeats, but at least three repeats are needed for practical applications. The microarray and RNA-seq data used for validation of the method always had at least three repeats for each condition. It is true that in most RNA-seq studies so far investigators do not have that many repeats (1 or 2), but this is likely to change as the cost of such experiments rapidly drops. To make the Characteristic Direction method accessible, we implemented it in Python, R, MATLAB and Mathematica. Readers that are interested in applying the method to their own data should refer to the open source scripts and examples available at: http://www.maayanlab.net/CD.

### Availability and requirements

Implementations of the method are provided in Python, R, MATLAB, and Mathematica freely available at: http://www.maayanlab.net/CD.

## Declarations

### Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by grants from the NIH: R01GM098316-01A1, P50GM071558, R01DK088541-01A1, U54HG006097-02S1 and RC4DK090860-01.

## Authors’ Affiliations

## References

- Allison DB, Cui X, Page GP, Sabripour M: Microarray data analysis: from disarray to consolidation and consensus. Nat Rev Genet. 2006, 7 (1): 55-65. 10.1038/nrg1749.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Budhraja V, Spitznagel E, Schaiff WT, Sadovsky Y: Incorporation of gene-specific variability improves expression analysis using high-density DNA microarrays. BMC Biol. 2003, 1 (1): 1-10.1186/1741-7007-1-1.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hsiao A, Worrall D, Olefsky J, Subramaniam S: Variance-modeled posterior inference of microarray data: detecting gene-expression changes in 3T3-L1 adipocytes. Bioinformatics. 2004, 20 (17): 3108-3127. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bth371.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Miller RA, Galecki A, Shmookler-Reis RJ: Interpretation, design, and analysis of gene array expression experiments. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001, 56 (2): B52-B57. 10.1093/gerona/56.2.B52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tusher VG, Tibshirani R, Chu G: Significance analysis of microarrays applied to the ionizing radiation response. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2001, 98 (9): 5116-5121. 10.1073/pnas.091062498.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Smyth GK: Linear models and empirical bayes methods for assessing differential expression in microarray experiments. Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol. 2004, 3 (1): 3-Google Scholar
- Love M, Anders S, Huber W: Differential analysis of RNA-Seq data at the gene level using the DESeq2 package. 2013Google Scholar
- Chilingaryan A, Gevorgyan N, Vardanyan A, Jones D, Szabo A: Multivariate approach for selecting sets of differentially expressed genes. Math Biosci. 2002, 176 (1): 59-69. 10.1016/S0025-5564(01)00105-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Szabo A, Boucher K, Carroll W, Klebanov L, Tsodikov A, Yakovlev A: Variable selection and pattern recognition with gene expression data generated by the microarray technology. Math Biosci. 2002, 176 (1): 71-98. 10.1016/S0025-5564(01)00103-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lu Y, Liu P-Y, Xiao P, Deng H-W: Hotelling's T2 multivariate profiling for detecting differential expression in microarrays. Bioinformatics. 2005, 21 (14): 3105-3113. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bti496.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bellman R, Kalaba R: On adaptive control processes. Automat Contr IRE Trans On. 1959, 4 (2): 1-9. 10.1109/TAC.1959.1104847.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Baldi P, Long AD: A Bayesian framework for the analysis of microarray expression data: regularized t-test and statistical inferences of gene changes. Bioinformatics. 2001, 17 (6): 509-519. 10.1093/bioinformatics/17.6.509.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cui X, Hwang JTG, Qiu J, Blades NJ, Churchill GA: Improved statistical tests for differential gene expression by shrinking variance components estimates. Biostatistics. 2005, 6 (1): 59-75. 10.1093/biostatistics/kxh018.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Nettleton D, Recknor J, Reecy JM: Identification of differentially expressed gene categories in microarray studies using nonparametric multivariate analysis. Bioinformatics. 2008, 24 (2): 192-201. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btm583.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Subramanian A, Tamayo P, Mootha VK, Mukherjee S, Ebert BL, Gillette MA, Mesirov JP: Gene set enrichment analysis: a knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2005, 102 (43): 15545-15550. 10.1073/pnas.0506580102.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Khatri P, Draghici S, Ostermeier GC, Krawetz SA: Profiling gene expression using onto-express. Genomics. 2002, 79 (2): 266-270. 10.1006/geno.2002.6698.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Osier MV, Zhao H, Cheung KH: Handling multiple testing while interpreting microarrays with the gene ontology database. BMC Bioinforma. 2004, 5 (1): 124-10.1186/1471-2105-5-124.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Pavlidis P, Qin J, Arango V, Mann JJ, Sibille E: Using the gene ontology for microarray data mining: a comparison of methods and application to age effects in human prefrontal cortex. Neurochem Res. 2004, 29 (6): 1213-1222.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Pavlidis P, Weston J, Cai J, Noble WS: Learning gene functional classifications from multiple data types. J Computat Biol. 2002, 9 (2): 401-411. 10.1089/10665270252935539.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Allison DB, Page GP, Beasley TM, Edwards JW: DNA microarrays and related genomics techniques: design, analysis, and interpretation of experiments. 2005. 2005, Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 15:Google Scholar
- Bullard J, Purdom E, Hansen K, Dudoit S: Evaluation of statistical methods for normalization and differential expression in mRNA-Seq experiments. BMC Bioinforma. 2010, 11 (1): 94-10.1186/1471-2105-11-94.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Anders S, Huber W: Differential expression analysis for sequence count data. Genome Biol. 2010, 11 (10): R106-10.1186/gb-2010-11-10-r106.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Robinson MD, Oshlack A: A scaling normalization method for differential expression analysis of RNA-seq data. Genome Biol. 2010, 11 (3): R25-10.1186/gb-2010-11-3-r25.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dillies M-A, Rau A, Aubert J, Hennequet-Antier C, Jeanmougin M, Servant N, Keime C, Marot G, Castel D, Estelle J: A comprehensive evaluation of normalization methods for Illumina high-throughput RNA sequencing data analysis. Brief Bioinform. 2012, 14 (6): 671-83.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Soneson C, Delorenzi M: A comparison of methods for differential expression analysis of RNA-seq data. BMC Bioinforma. 2013, 14 (1): 91-10.1186/1471-2105-14-91.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman JJH: The elements of statistical learning. 2001, New York: Springer, 1:View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Guo Y, Hastie T, Tibshirani R: Regularized linear discriminant analysis and its application in microarrays. Biostatistics. 2007, 8 (1): 86-100. 10.1093/biostatistics/kxj035.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chen E, Tan C, Kou Y, Duan Q, Wang Z, Meirelles G, Clark N, Ma'ayan A: Enrichr: interactive and collaborative HTML5 gene list enrichment analysis tool. BMC Bioinforma. 2013, 14 (1): 128-10.1186/1471-2105-14-128.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Subramanian A, Kuehn H, Gould J, Tamayo P, Mesirov JP: GSEA-P: a desktop application for gene set enrichment analysis. Bioinformatics. 2007, 23 (23): 3251-3253. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btm369.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mootha VK, Lindgren CM, Eriksson K-F, Subramanian A, Sihag S, Lehar J, Puigserver P, Carlsson E, Ridderstråle M, Laurila E: PGC-1α-responsive genes involved in oxidative phosphorylation are coordinately downregulated in human diabetes. Nat Genet. 2003, 34 (3): 267-273. 10.1038/ng1180.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lachmann A, Xu H, Krishnan J, Berger SI, Mazloom AR, Ma'ayan A: ChEA: transcription factor regulation inferred from integrating genome-wide ChIP-X experiments. Bioinformatics. 2010, 26 (19): 2438-2444. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq466.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Feingold E, Good P, Guyer M, Kamholz S, Liefer L, Wetterstrand K, Collins F, Gingeras T, Kampa D, Sekinger E: The ENCODE (ENCyclopedia of DNA elements) project. Science. 2004, 306 (5696): 636-640.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wishart DS, Knox C, Guo AC, Shrivastava S, Hassanali M, Stothard P, Chang Z, Woolsey J: DrugBank: a comprehensive resource for in silico drug discovery and exploration. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006, 34 (suppl 1): D668-D672.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hardee J, Ouyang Z, Zhang Y, Kundaje A, Lacroute P, Snyder M: STAT3 targets suggest mechanisms of aggressive tumorigenesis in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. G3: Genes Genomes Genet. 2013, 3 (12): 2173-2185.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Liu R, Wang X, Chen GY, Dalerba P, Gurney A, Hoey T, Sherlock G, Lewicki J, Shedden K, Clarke MF: The prognostic role of a gene signature from tumorigenic breast-cancer cells. N Engl J Med. 2007, 356 (3): 217-226. 10.1056/NEJMoa063994.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dvorak HF: Tumors: wounds that do not heal: similarities between tumor stroma generation and wound healing. New Engl J Med. 1986, 315 (26): 1650-1659. 10.1056/NEJM198612253152606.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, Cherry JM, Davis AP, Dolinski K, Dwight SS, Eppig JT: Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nat Genet. 2000, 25 (1): 25-10.1038/75556.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hanahan D, Weinberg RA: Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell. 2011, 144 (5): 646-674. 10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hanahan D, Weinberg RA: The hallmarks of cancer. Cell. 2000, 100 (1): 57-70. 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81683-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

## Copyright

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.