IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0020826.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why Is There a Lack of Consensus on Molecular Subgroups of Glioblastoma? Understanding the Nature of Biological and Statistical Variability in Glioblastoma Expression Data

Author

Listed:
  • Nicholas F Marko
  • John Quackenbush
  • Robert J Weil

Abstract

Introduction: Gene expression patterns characterizing clinically-relevant molecular subgroups of glioblastoma are difficult to reproduce. We suspect a combination of biological and analytic factors confounds interpretation of glioblastoma expression data. We seek to clarify the nature and relative contributions of these factors, to focus additional investigations, and to improve the accuracy and consistency of translational glioblastoma analyses. Methods: We analyzed gene expression and clinical data for 340 glioblastomas in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). We developed a logic model to analyze potential sources of biological, technical, and analytic variability and used standard linear classifiers and linear dimensional reduction algorithms to investigate the nature and relative contributions of each factor. Results: Commonly-described sources of classification error, including individual sample characteristics, batch effects, and analytic and technical noise make measurable but proportionally minor contributions to inconsistent molecular classification. Our analysis suggests that three, previously underappreciated factors may account for a larger fraction of classification errors: inherent non-linear/non-orthogonal relationships among the genes used in conjunction with classification algorithms that assume linearity; skewed data distributions assumed to be Gaussian; and biologic variability (noise) among tumors, of which we propose three types. Conclusions: Our analysis of the TCGA data demonstrates a contributory role for technical factors in molecular classification inconsistencies in glioblastoma but also suggests that biological variability, abnormal data distribution, and non-linear relationships among genes may be responsible for a proportionally larger component of classification error. These findings may have important implications for both glioblastoma research and for translational application of other large-volume biological databases.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicholas F Marko & John Quackenbush & Robert J Weil, 2011. "Why Is There a Lack of Consensus on Molecular Subgroups of Glioblastoma? Understanding the Nature of Biological and Statistical Variability in Glioblastoma Expression Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-19, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0020826
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020826
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0020826
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0020826&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0020826?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mehmet Baysan & Serdar Bozdag & Margaret C Cam & Svetlana Kotliarova & Susie Ahn & Jennifer Walling & Jonathan K Killian & Holly Stevenson & Paul Meltzer & Howard A Fine, 2012. "G-Cimp Status Prediction Of Glioblastoma Samples Using mRNA Expression Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-10, November.
    2. Bar Haim Y. & Booth James G. & Wells Martin T., 2012. "A Mixture-Model Approach for Parallel Testing for Unequal Variances," Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-21, January.

    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:pone00:0020826. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.