BMC Bioinformatics

By Michael Romano, Kyung In Kim, Nicolas Schroeder, M. V. D. Wiel, Cannataro Roberto, Marangoni. 2005

1,653 citations recorded by the source corpus.

BackgroundWe consider effects of dependence among variables of high-dimensional data in multiple hypothesis testing problems, in particular the False Discovery Rate (FDR) control procedures. Recent simulation studies consider only simple correlation structures among variables, which is hardly inspired by real data features. Our aim is to systematically study effects of several network features like sparsity and correlation strength by imposing dependence structures among variables using random correlation matrices.ResultsWe study the robustness against dependence of several FDR procedures that are popular in microarray studies, such as Benjamin-Hochberg FDR, Storey's q-value, SAM and resampling based FDR procedures. False Non-discovery Rates and estimates of the number of null hypotheses are computed from those methods and compared. Our simulation study shows that methods such as SAM and the q-value do not adequately control the FDR to the level claimed under dependence conditions. On the other hand, the adaptive Benjamini-Hochberg procedure seems to be most robust while remaining conservative. Finally, the estimates of the number of true null hypotheses under various dependence conditions are variable.ConclusionWe discuss a new method for efficient guided simulation of dependent data, which satisfy imposed network constraints as conditional independence structures. Our simulation set-up allows for a structural study of the effect of dependencies on multiple testing criterions and is useful for testing a potentially new method on π0 or FDR estimation in a dependency context.

Subfields: Statistics and Probability

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Hidden Markov model speed heuristic and iterative HMM search procedure (2010, methodology): “Unfortunately, current implementations of the Viterbi and Forward scoring algorithms, which are commonly used to compare a sequence to a profile-HMM, require considerable time.”
Protein contact prediction by integrating joint evolutionary coupling analysis and supervised learning (2013, methodology): “…2011), that make use of multiple sequence alignment; and (ii) supervised machine learning methods, such as SVMSEQ (Wu and Zhang, 2008), NNcon (Tegge et al., 2009), SVMcon (Cheng and Baldi, 2007), CMAPpro (Di Lena et al., 2012), that predict contacts from a variety of information VC The Author 2015.”
Machine Learning Methods for Protein Structure Prediction (2008, methodology): “machines [74] have been applied to contact map prediction.”
Predicting protein residue-residue contacts using deep networks and boosting (2012, methodology): “A number of these sequence-based methods use various machine learning methods such as support vector machines (Cheng and Baldi, 2007; Wu and Zhang, 2008), neural networks (Fariselli et al.”
UniCon3D: de novo protein structure prediction using united-residue conformational search via stepwise, probabilistic sampling (2016, methodology): “, 2013) or machine learning based methods (Cheng and Baldi, 2007; Eickholt and Cheng, 2012; Tegge et al., 2009; Wang and Xu, 2013) or a combination of both covariation techniques and machine learning (Jones et al.”
De novo Protein Structure Prediction by Coupling Contact With Distance Profile (2020, background): “Cheng and Baldi [21], [22] improve accuracy of contacts prediction by using machine learning and a large feature set.”
PoPMuSiC 2.1: a web server for the estimation of protein stability changes upon mutation and sequence optimality (2011, background): “Catalytic residues that are not identified by PoPMuSiC are colored in magenta. square error sc is 1.16 kcal/mol.”