IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1009838.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating supervised and unsupervised background noise correction in human gut microbiome data

Author

Listed:
  • Leah Briscoe
  • Brunilda Balliu
  • Sriram Sankararaman
  • Eran Halperin
  • Nandita R Garud

Abstract

The ability to predict human phenotypes and identify biomarkers of disease from metagenomic data is crucial for the development of therapeutics for microbiome-associated diseases. However, metagenomic data is commonly affected by technical variables unrelated to the phenotype of interest, such as sequencing protocol, which can make it difficult to predict phenotype and find biomarkers of disease. Supervised methods to correct for background noise, originally designed for gene expression and RNA-seq data, are commonly applied to microbiome data but may be limited because they cannot account for unmeasured sources of variation. Unsupervised approaches address this issue, but current methods are limited because they are ill-equipped to deal with the unique aspects of microbiome data, which is compositional, highly skewed, and sparse. We perform a comparative analysis of the ability of different denoising transformations in combination with supervised correction methods as well as an unsupervised principal component correction approach that is presently used in other domains but has not been applied to microbiome data to date. We find that the unsupervised principal component correction approach has comparable ability in reducing false discovery of biomarkers as the supervised approaches, with the added benefit of not needing to know the sources of variation apriori. However, in prediction tasks, it appears to only improve prediction when technical variables contribute to the majority of variance in the data. As new and larger metagenomic datasets become increasingly available, background noise correction will become essential for generating reproducible microbiome analyses.Author summary: The human gut microbiome is known to play a major role in health and is associated with many diseases including colorectal cancer, obesity, and diabetes. The prediction of host phenotypes and identification of biomarkers of disease is essential for harnessing the therapeutic potential of the microbiome. However, many metagenomic datasets are affected by technical variables that introduce unwanted variation that can confound the ability to predict phenotypes and identify biomarkers. Currently, supervised methods originally designed for gene expression and RNA-seq data are commonly applied to microbiome data for correction of background noise, but they are limited in that they cannot correct for unmeasured sources of variation. Unsupervised approaches address this issue, but current methods are limited because they are ill-equipped to deal with the unique aspects of microbiome data, which is compositional, highly skewed, and sparse. We perform a comparative analysis of the ability of different denoising transformations in combination with supervised correction methods as well as an unsupervised principal component correction approach and find that all correction approaches reduce false positives for biomarker discovery. In the task of predicting phenotypes, different approaches have varying success where the unsupervised correction can improve prediction when technical variables contribute to the majority of variance in the data. As new and larger metagenomic datasets become increasingly available, background noise correction will become essential for generating reproducible microbiome analyses.

Suggested Citation

  • Leah Briscoe & Brunilda Balliu & Sriram Sankararaman & Eran Halperin & Nandita R Garud, 2022. "Evaluating supervised and unsupervised background noise correction in human gut microbiome data," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(2), pages 1-25, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1009838
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009838
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009838
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009838&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009838?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeffrey T Leek & John D Storey, 2007. "Capturing Heterogeneity in Gene Expression Studies by Surrogate Variable Analysis," PLOS Genetics, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(9), pages 1-12, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Arjun Bhattacharya & Anastasia N. Freedman & Vennela Avula & Rebeca Harris & Weifang Liu & Calvin Pan & Aldons J. Lusis & Robert M. Joseph & Lisa Smeester & Hadley J. Hartwell & Karl C. K. Kuban & Car, 2022. "Placental genomics mediates genetic associations with complex health traits and disease," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15, December.
    2. repec:jss:jstsof:40:i14 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Won Jun Lee & Sang Cheol Kim & Jung-Ho Yoon & Sang Jun Yoon & Johan Lim & You-Sun Kim & Sung Won Kwon & Jeong Hill Park, 2016. "Meta-Analysis of Tumor Stem-Like Breast Cancer Cells Using Gene Set and Network Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-20, February.
    4. Federico Innocenti & Gregory M Cooper & Ian B Stanaway & Eric R Gamazon & Joshua D Smith & Snezana Mirkov & Jacqueline Ramirez & Wanqing Liu & Yvonne S Lin & Cliona Moloney & Shelly Force Aldred & Nat, 2011. "Identification, Replication, and Functional Fine-Mapping of Expression Quantitative Trait Loci in Primary Human Liver Tissue," PLOS Genetics, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-16, May.
    5. Emanuele Aliverti & Kristian Lum & James E. Johndrow & David B. Dunson, 2021. "Removing the influence of group variables in high‐dimensional predictive modelling," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(3), pages 791-811, July.
    6. Marron, J.S., 2017. "Big Data in context and robustness against heterogeneity," Econometrics and Statistics, Elsevier, vol. 2(C), pages 73-80.
    7. Seungchul Baek & Yen‐Yi Ho & Yanyuan Ma, 2020. "Using sufficient direction factor model to analyze latent activities associated with breast cancer survival," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 76(4), pages 1340-1350, December.
    8. Griffin, Maryclare & Hoff, Peter D., 2019. "Lasso ANOVA decompositions for matrix and tensor data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 181-194.
    9. Yunfeng Li & Jarrett Morrow & Benjamin Raby & Kelan Tantisira & Scott T Weiss & Wei Huang & Weiliang Qiu, 2017. "Detecting disease-associated genomic outcomes using constrained mixture of Bayesian hierarchical models for paired data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-16, March.
    10. Zhaohui Qin & Ben Li & Karen N. Conneely & Hao Wu & Ming Hu & Deepak Ayyala & Yongseok Park & Victor X. Jin & Fangyuan Zhang & Han Zhang & Li Li & Shili Lin, 2016. "Statistical Challenges in Analyzing Methylation and Long-Range Chromosomal Interaction Data," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 8(2), pages 284-309, October.
    11. Delaram Pouyabahar & Tallulah Andrews & Gary D. Bader, 2025. "Interpretable single-cell factor decomposition using sciRED," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-16, December.
    12. Zemin Zheng & Jinchi Lv & Wei Lin, 2021. "Nonsparse Learning with Latent Variables," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 69(1), pages 346-359, January.
    13. Chee Ho H’ng & Shanika L. Amarasinghe & Boya Zhang & Hojin Chang & Xinli Qu & David R. Powell & Alberto Rosello-Diez, 2024. "Compensatory growth and recovery of cartilage cytoarchitecture after transient cell death in fetal mouse limbs," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, December.
    14. Mark Reimers, 2010. "Making Informed Choices about Microarray Data Analysis," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(5), pages 1-7, May.
    15. Leek Jeffrey T & Storey John D., 2011. "The Joint Null Criterion for Multiple Hypothesis Tests," Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-22, June.
    16. Arezo Torang & Aleksandar B. Kirov & Veerle Lammers & Kate Cameron & Valérie M. Wouters & Rene F. Jackstadt & Tamsin R. M. Lannagan & Joan H. Jong & Jan Koster & Owen Sansom & Jan Paul Medema, 2025. "Enterocyte-like differentiation defines metabolic gene signatures of CMS3 colorectal cancers and provides therapeutic vulnerability," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-16, December.
    17. Christos Miliotis & Yuling Ma & Xanthi-Lida Katopodi & Dimitra Karagkouni & Eleni Kanata & Kaia Mattioli & Nikolas Kalavros & Yered H. Pita-Juárez & Felipe Batalini & Varune R. Ramnarine & Shivani Nan, 2024. "Determinants of gastric cancer immune escape identified from non-coding immune-landscape quantitative trait loci," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, December.
    18. Nicoló Fusi & Oliver Stegle & Neil D Lawrence, 2012. "Joint Modelling of Confounding Factors and Prominent Genetic Regulators Provides Increased Accuracy in Genetical Genomics Studies," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, January.
    19. Jin Hyun Ju & Sushila A Shenoy & Ronald G Crystal & Jason G Mezey, 2017. "An independent component analysis confounding factor correction framework for identifying broad impact expression quantitative trait loci," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-26, May.
    20. Miecznikowski, Jeffrey C. & Gold, David & Shepherd, Lori & Liu, Song, 2011. "Deriving and comparing the distribution for the number of false positives in single step methods to control k-FWER," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 81(11), pages 1695-1705, November.
    21. Aline Talhouk & Stefan Kommoss & Robertson Mackenzie & Martin Cheung & Samuel Leung & Derek S Chiu & Steve E Kalloger & David G Huntsman & Stephanie Chen & Maria Intermaggio & Jacek Gronwald & Fong C , 2016. "Single-Patient Molecular Testing with NanoString nCounter Data Using a Reference-Based Strategy for Batch Effect Correction," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pcbi00:1009838. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    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.