Cited by 33Gene expression and cancer classificationTopological and Geometric Data AnalysisSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics

Clustering-independent analysis of genomic data using spectral simplicial theory

Open access
Govek, Kiya W., Yamajala, Venkata S., Camara, Pablo G.·2019·PLOS Computational Biology

Abstract

The prevailing paradigm for the analysis of biological data involves comparing groups of replicates from different conditions (e.g. control and treatment) to statistically infer features that discriminate them (e.g. differentially expressed genes). However, many situations in modern genomics such as single-cell omics experiments do not fit well into this paradigm because they lack true replicates. In such instances, spectral techniques could be used to rank features according to their degree of consistency with an underlying metric structure without the need to cluster samples. Here, we extend spectral methods for feature selection to abstract simplicial complexes and present a general framework for clustering-independent analysis. Combinatorial Laplacian scores take into account the topology spanned by the data and reduce to the ordinary Laplacian score when restricted to graphs. We demonstrate the utility of this framework with several applications to the analysis of gene expression and multi-modal genomic data. Specifically, we perform differential expression analysis in situations where samples cannot be grouped into distinct classes, and we disaggregate differentially expressed genes according to the topology of the expression space (e.g. alternative paths of differentiation). We also apply this formalism to identify genes with spatial patterns of expression using fluorescence in-situ hybridization data and to establish associations between genetic alterations and global expression patterns in large cross-sectional studies. Our results provide a unifying perspective on topological data analysis and manifold learning approaches to the analysis of large-scale biological datasets.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007509

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • Cactus and Progressive Cactus use graph-based approaches, allowing them to model and align complex genomic structures.

    “These tools use graph-based approaches, allowing them to model and align complex genomic structures [68] (Table 1).”

    From Whole-Genome Alignment: Methods, Challenges, and Future Directions (2024) · cites this paper as [68]

    The Results (Cyclic analysis; page unavailable) discuss graph structures and loops in single-cell gene-expression data, not genome-alignment tools. Searches for Cactus, Progressive Cactus, and graph-based alignment found no passage addressing whether those tools model or align complex genomic structures. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 32

  1. [1]Li J, Cheng K, Wang S, Morstatter F, Trevino RP, Tang J, et al Feature selection: A data perspective. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR). 2017; 50(6): 94.
  2. [2]He X, Cai D, Niyogi P, editors. Laplacian score for feature selection. Advances in neural information processing systems; 2006.
  3. [3]Coifman RR, Lafon S, Lee AB, Maggioni M, Nadler B, Warner F, et al Geometric diffusions as a tool for harmonic analysis and structure definition of data: multiscale methods. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2005; 102(21): 7432– 7. 10.1073/pnas.0500896102 15899969 PMC1140426 · DOI
  4. [4]Nouri N, Kleinstein SH. A spectral clustering-based method for identifying clones from high-throughput B cell repertoire sequencing data. Bioinformatics. 2018; 34(13): i341– i9. Epub 2018/06/29. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty235 29949968 PMC6022594 · DOI
  5. [5]Paccanaro A, Casbon JA, Saqi MA. Spectral clustering of protein sequences. Nucleic acids research. 2006; 34(5): 1571– 80. Epub 2006/03/21. 10.1093/nar/gkj515 16547200 PMC1409676 · DOI
  6. [6]Chen X, Huang L. LRSSLMDA: Laplacian Regularized Sparse Subspace Learning for MiRNA-Disease Association prediction. PLoS computational biology. 2017; 13(12): e1005912 Epub 2017/12/19. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005912 29253885 PMC5749861 · DOI
  7. [7]Li C, Li H. Network-constrained regularization and variable selection for analysis of genomic data. Bioinformatics. 2008; 24(9): 1175– 82. Epub 2008/03/04. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btn081. 18310618 · DOI
  8. [8]Chen L, Xuan J, Riggins RB, Clarke R, Wang Y. Identifying cancer biomarkers by network-constrained support vector machines. BMC Syst Biol. 2011; 5: 161 Epub 2011/10/14. 10.1186/1752-0509-5-161 21992556 PMC3214162 · DOI
  9. [9]Haghverdi L, Buttner M, Wolf FA, Buettner F, Theis FJ. Diffusion pseudotime robustly reconstructs lineage branching. Nat Methods. 2016; 13(10): 845– 8. 10.1038/nmeth.3971. 27571553 · DOI · Paper page
  10. [10]Haghverdi L, Buettner F, Theis FJ. Diffusion maps for high-dimensional single-cell analysis of differentiation data. Bioinformatics. 2015; 31(18): 2989– 98. Epub 2015/05/24. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv325. 26002886 · DOI · Paper page
  11. [11]Rizvi AH, Camara PG, Kandror EK, Roberts TJ, Schieren I, Maniatis T, et al Single-cell topological RNA-seq analysis reveals insights into cellular differentiation and development. Nat Biotechnol. 2017; 35(6): 551– 60. 10.1038/nbt.3854 28459448 PMC5569300 · DOI · Paper page
  12. [14]McInnes L, Healy J. Umap: Uniform manifold approximation and projection for dimension reduction. arXiv preprint arXiv:180203426. 2018.
  13. [16]Horak D, Jost J. Spectra of combinatorial Laplace operators on simplicial complexes. Advances in Mathematics. 2013; 244: 303– 36.
  14. [17]Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the royal statistical society Series B (Methodological). 1995: 289– 300.
  15. [18]Storey JD. A direct approach to false discovery rates. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology). 2002; 64(3): 479– 98.
  16. [19]Soneson C, Robinson MD. Bias, robustness and scalability in single-cell differential expression analysis. Nature methods. 2018; 15(4): 255 10.1038/nmeth.4612 29481549 · DOI · Paper page
  17. [20]Love MI, Huber W, Anders S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome biology. 2014; 15(12): 550 10.1186/s13059-014-0550-8 25516281 PMC4302049 · DOI · Paper page
  18. [21]Robinson MD, McCarthy DJ, Smyth GK. edgeR: a Bioconductor package for differential expression analysis of digital gene expression data. Bioinformatics. 2010; 26(1): 139– 40. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp616 19910308 PMC2796818 · DOI · Paper page
  19. [22]Finak G, McDavid A, Yajima M, Deng J, Gersuk V, Shalek AK, et al MAST: a flexible statistical framework for assessing transcriptional changes and characterizing heterogeneity in single-cell RNA sequencing data. Genome biology. 2015; 16: 278 10.1186/s13059-015-0844-5 26653891 PMC4676162 · DOI · Paper page
  20. [23]Lambrechts D, Wauters E, Boeckx B, Aibar S, Nittner D, Burton O, et al Phenotype molding of stromal cells in the lung tumor microenvironment. Nature medicine. 2018; 24(8): 1277 10.1038/s41591-018-0096-5 29988129 · DOI · Paper page
  21. [24]Briggs JA, Li VC, Lee S, Woolf CJ, Klein A, Kirschner MW. Mouse embryonic stem cells can differentiate via multiple paths to the same state. Elife. 2017; 6: e26945 10.7554/eLife.26945 28990928 PMC5648529 · DOI · Paper page
  22. [25]Cao J, Spielmann M, Qiu X, Huang X, Ibrahim DM, Hill AJ, et al The single-cell transcriptional landscape of mammalian organogenesis. Nature. 2019; 566(7745): 496– 502. Epub 2019/02/23. 10.1038/s41586-019-0969-x 30787437 PMC6434952 · DOI · Paper page
  23. [26]Petit F, Sears KE, Ahituv N. Limb development: a paradigm of gene regulation. Nat Rev Genet. 2017; 18(4): 245– 58. Epub 2017/02/07. 10.1038/nrg.2016.167. 28163321 · DOI
  24. [27]Codeluppi S, Borm LE, Zeisel A, La Manno G, van Lunteren JA, Svensson CI, et al Spatial organization of the somatosensory cortex revealed by osmFISH. Nat Methods. 2018; 15(11): 932– 5. Epub 2018/11/01. 10.1038/s41592-018-0175-z. 30377364 · DOI
  25. [28]Ceccarelli M, Barthel FP, Malta TM, Sabedot TS, Salama SR, Murray BA, et al Molecular Profiling Reveals Biologically Discrete Subsets and Pathways of Progression in Diffuse Glioma. Cell. 2016; 164(3): 550– 63. 10.1016/j.cell.2015.12.028 26824661 PMC4754110 · DOI
  26. [29]Kleinberg JM, editor An impossibility theorem for clustering. Advances in neural information processing systems; 2003.
  27. [30]Edsgard D, Johnsson P, Sandberg R. Identification of spatial expression trends in single-cell gene expression data. Nat Methods. 2018; 15(5): 339– 42. Epub 2018/03/20. 10.1038/nmeth.4634 29553578 PMC6314435 · DOI
  28. [31]DeTomaso D, Jones MG, Subramaniam M, Ashuach T, Ye CJ, Yosef N. Functional interpretation of single cell similarity maps. Nature communications. 2019; 10(1): 4376 Epub 2019/09/29. 10.1038/s41467-019-12235-0 31558714 PMC6763499 · DOI
  29. [32]Weinreb C, Wolock S, Klein AM. SPRING: a kinetic interface for visualizing high dimensional single-cell expression data. Bioinformatics. 2018; 34(7): 1246– 8. Epub 2017/12/12. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx792 29228172 PMC6030950 · DOI · Paper page
  30. [33]Stuart T, Butler A, Hoffman P, Hafemeister C, Papalexi E, Mauck WM, 3rd, et al Comprehensive Integration of Single-Cell Data. Cell. 2019 Epub 2019/06/11. 10.1016/j.cell.2019.05.031. 31178118 PMC6687398 · DOI · Paper page
  31. [34]Reimand J, Kull M, Peterson H, Hansen J, Vilo J. g:Profiler—a web-based toolset for functional profiling of gene lists from large-scale experiments. Nucleic acids research. 2007; 35(Web Server issue): W193– 200. Epub 2007/05/05. 10.1093/nar/gkm226 17478515 PMC1933153 · DOI
  32. [35]Lawrence MS, Stojanov P, Polak P, Kryukov GV, Cibulskis K, Sivachenko A, et al Mutational heterogeneity in cancer and the search for new cancer-associated genes. Nature. 2013; 499(7457): 214– 8. 10.1038/nature12213 23770567 PMC3919509 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Govek, K. W., Yamajala, V. S., & Camara, P. G.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
Venue
PLOS Computational Biology
Published
2019-11-22
Volume
15
Issue
11
Pages
e1007509
ISSN
  • 1553-734X (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-7358
OpenAlex
W2991174006
Cited by
33
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Computational Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Topological and Geometric Data Analysis
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
Keywords
abstract simplicial complexes, feature selection, differential expression analysis, single-cell omics, spatial gene expression, fluorescence in situ hybridization, topological data analysis, manifold learning
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Models, Theoretical, Cluster Analysis, Computational Biology, Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis, Gene Expression Profiling, Genomics

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