Cited by 2,183Gene expression and cancer classificationBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksFace and Expression Recognition

Metagenes and molecular pattern discovery using matrix factorization

Open access
Brunet, Jean-Philippe, Tamayo, Pablo, Golub, Todd R., Mesirov, Jill P.·2004·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

We describe here the use of nonnegative matrix factorization (NMF), an algorithm based on decomposition by parts that can reduce the dimension of expression data from thousands of genes to a handful of metagenes. Coupled with a model selection mechanism, adapted to work for any stochastic clustering algorithm, NMF is an efficient method for identification of distinct molecular patterns and provides a powerful method for class discovery. We demonstrate the ability of NMF to recover meaningful biological information from cancer-related microarray data. NMF appears to have advantages over other methods such as hierarchical clustering or self-organizing maps. We found it less sensitive to a priori selection of genes or initial conditions and able to detect alternative or context-dependent patterns of gene expression in complex biological systems. This ability, similar to semantic polysemy in text, provides a general method for robust molecular pattern discovery.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0308531101

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • We previously identified three robust and reproducible transcriptomic sub-groups of KRAS-mutant LUAD by applying non-negative matrix factorization consensus clustering to RNASeq data from 68 tumors from TCGA.

    “We previously identified three robust and reproducible transcriptomic sub-groups of KRAS-mutant LUAD by applying non-negative matrix factorization consensus clustering81–83 to RNASeq data from 68 tumors from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) dataset67.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. [1]Eisen, M., Spellman, P., Brown, P. & Botstein, D. (1998) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95, 14863–14868. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. [2]Alizadeh, A. A., Eisen, M. B., Davis, R. E., Ma, C., Lossos, I. S., Rosenwald, A., Boldrick, J. C., Sabet, H., Tran, T., Yu, X., et al. (2000) Nature 403, 503–511. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. [3]Perou, C. M., Sorlie, T., Eisen, M. B., van de Rijn, M., Jeffrey, S. S., Rees, C. A., Pollack, J. R., Ross, D. T., Johnsen, H., Akslen, L. A., et al. (2000) Nature 406, 747–752. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. [4]Tamayo, P., Slonim, D., Mesirov, J., Zhu, Q., Dmitrovsky, E., Lander, E. S. & Golub, T. R. (1999) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96, 2907–2912. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. [5]Golub, T. R., Slonim, D. K., Tamayo, P., Huard, C., Gaasenbeek, M., Mesirov, J. P., Coller, H., Loh, M. L., Downing, J. R., Caligiuri, M. A., et al. (1999) Science 286, 531–537. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. [6]Moloshok, T. D., Klevecz, R. R., Grant, J. D., Manion, F. J., Speier, W. F. 4th, & Ochs, M. F. (2002) Bioinformatics 18, 566–575. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. [7]Gasch, A. P. & Eisen, M. B. (2002) Genome Biol. 3, research0059.1–0059.22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. [8]Alter, O., Brown, P. O. & Botstein, D. (2000) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97, 10101–10106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. [9]Lee, D. D. & Seung, H. S. (1999) Nature 401, 788–793. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. [10]Lee, D. D. & Seung, H. S. (2001) Adv. Neural Info. Proc. Syst. 13, 556–562. [Google Scholar]
  11. [11]Monti, S., Tamayo, P., Golub, T. R. & Mesirov, J. P. (2003) Machine Learn. J. 52, 91–118. [Google Scholar]
  12. [12]Slonim, D. K., Tamayo, P., Mesirov, J. P., Golub, T. R. & Lander, E. S. (2000) Proceedings of the Fourth Annual International Conference on Computational Molecular Biology, RECOMB 2000, 263–272.
  13. [13]Pomeroy, S. L., Tamayo, P., Gaasenbeek, M., Sturla, L. M., Angelo, M., McLaughlin, M. E., Kim, J. Y., Goumnerova, L. C., Black, P. M., Lau, C., et al. (2002) Nature 415, 436–442. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. [14]Kim, P. M. & Tidor, B. (2003) Genome Res. 13, 1706–1718. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. [15]Heger, A. & Holm, L. (2003) Bioinformatics 19, Suppl., i130–i137. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brunet, J.-P., Tamayo, P., Golub, T. R., & Mesirov, J. P.
Affiliations
Broad Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Mesirov, Jill P.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2004-03-11
Volume
101
Issue
12
Pages
4164-4169
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2136787567
Cited by
2,183
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 113 · 2025: 113 · 2024: 168 · 2023: 164 · 2022: 205 · 2021: 161 · 2020: 143 · 2019: 137 · 2018: 102 · 2017: 118 · 2016: 87 · 2015: 92 · 2014: 92 · 2013: 88 · 2012: 68
FWCI
10.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • AstraZeneca
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • Harvard University
  • Broad Institute
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Face and Expression Recognition
Keywords
non-negative matrix factorization, metagenes, gene expression data, dimensionality reduction, cancer microarray data, model selection, stochastic clustering, hierarchical clustering comparison
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Leukemia, Medulloblastoma, Models, Genetic, Neoplasms, Central Nervous System Neoplasms, Computational Biology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review