IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/biomet/v108y2021i1p17-36..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hypothesis testing for phylogenetic composition: a minimum-cost flow perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Shulei Wang
  • T Tony Cai
  • Hongzhe Li

Abstract

SummaryQuantitative comparison of microbial composition from different populations is a fundamental task in various microbiome studies. We consider two-sample testing for microbial compositional data by leveraging phylogenetic information. Motivated by existing phylogenetic distances, we take a minimum-cost flow perspective to study such testing problems. We first show that multivariate analysis of variance with permutation using phylogenetic distances, one of the most commonly used methods in practice, is essentially a sum-of-squares type of test and has better power for dense alternatives. However, empirical evidence from real datasets suggests that the phylogenetic microbial composition difference between two populations is usually sparse. Motivated by this observation, we propose a new maximum type test, detector of active flow on a tree, and investigate its properties. We show that the proposed method is particularly powerful against sparse phylogenetic composition difference and enjoys certain optimality. The practical merit of the proposed method is demonstrated by simulation studies and an application to a human intestinal biopsy microbiome dataset on patients with ulcerative colitis.

Suggested Citation

  • Shulei Wang & T Tony Cai & Hongzhe Li, 2021. "Hypothesis testing for phylogenetic composition: a minimum-cost flow perspective," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 108(1), pages 17-36.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:biomet:v:108:y:2021:i:1:p:17-36.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/biomet/asaa061
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:biomet:v:108:y:2021:i:1:p:17-36.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/biomet .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.