Correcting for experiment-specific variability in expression compendia can remove underlying signals. Issue 11 (3rd November 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lee, Alexandra J; Park, YoSon; Doing, Georgia; Hogan, Deborah A; Greene, Casey S
• Is Part Of: GigaScience. Volume 9:Issue 11(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-11-03
• Subjects: Information storage and retrieval systems -- Research -- Periodicals; Biology -- Research -- Periodicals; Medical sciences -- Research -- Periodicals; Database management -- Periodicals; 570.285
• DOI: 10.1093/gigascience/giaa117
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2047-217X

Abstract

Abstract: Motivation: In the past two decades, scientists in different laboratories have assayed gene expression from millions of samples. These experiments can be combined into compendia and analyzed collectively to extract novel biological patterns. Technical variability, or "batch effects, " may result from combining samples collected and processed at different times and in different settings. Such variability may distort our ability to extract true underlying biological patterns. As more integrative analysis methods arise and data collections get bigger, we must determine how technical variability affects our ability to detect desired patterns when many experiments are combined. Objective: We sought to determine the extent to which an underlying signal was masked by technical variability by simulating compendia comprising data aggregated across multiple experiments. Method: We developed a generative multi-layer neural network to simulate compendia of gene expression experiments from large-scale microbial and human datasets. We compared simulated compendia before and after introducing varying numbers of sources of undesired variability. Results: The signal from a baseline compendium was obscured when the number of added sources of variability was small. Applying statistical correction methods rescued the underlying signal in these cases. However, as the number of sources of variability increased, it became easier to detect the original signal even without correction. In fact, statistical correction reduced our power to detect the underlying signal. Conclusion: When combining a modest number of experiments, it is best to correct for experiment-specific noise. However, when many experiments are combined, statistical correction reduces our ability to extract underlying patterns.