Identifying marker genes in transcription profiling data using a mixture of feature relevance experts

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Transcription profiling experiments permit the expression levels of many genes to be measured simultaneously. Given profiling data from two types of samples, genes that most distinguish the samples (marker genes) are good candidates for subsequent in-depth experimental studies and developing decision support systems for diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring. This work proposes a mixture of feature relevance experts as a method for identifying marker genes and illustrates the idea using published data from samples labeled as acute lymphoblastic and myeloid leukemia (ALL, AML). A feature relevance expert implements an algorithm that calculates how well a gene distinguishes samples, reorders genes according to this relevance measure, and uses a supervised learning method [here, support vector machines (SVMs)] to determine the generalization performances of different nested gene subsets. The mixture of three feature relevance experts examined implement two existing and one novel feature relevance measures. For each expert, a gene subset consisting of the top 50 genes distinguished ALL from AML samples as completely as all 7,070 genes. The 125 genes at the union of the top 50s are plausible markers for a prototype decision support system. Chromosomal aberration and other data support the prediction that the three genes at the intersection of the top 50s, cystatin C, azurocidin, and adipsin, are good targets for investigating the basic biology of ALL/AML. The same data were employed to identify markers that distinguish samples based on their labels of T cell/B cell, peripheral blood/bone marrow, and male/female. Selenoprotein W may discriminate T cells from B cells. Results from analysis of transcription profiling data from tumor/nontumor colon adenocarcinoma samples support the general utility of the aforementioned approach. Theoretical issues such as choosing SVM kernels and their parameters, training and evaluating feature relevance experts, and the impact of potentially mislabeled samples on marker identification (feature selection) are discussed.