Cited by 1,510Bioinformatics and Genomic NetworksSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomicsGene expression and cancer classification

Multi-Omics Factor Analysis—a framework for unsupervised integration of multi-omics data sets

Open access
Argelaguet, Ricard, Velten, Britta, Arnol, Damien, Dietrich, Sascha, Zenz, Thorsten, Marioni, John C, Buettner, Florian, Huber, Wolfgang +1 more·2018·Molecular Systems Biology

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Abstract Multi-omic studies promise the improved characterization of biological processes across molecular layers. However, methods for the unsupervised integration of the resulting heterogeneous datasets are lacking. We present Multi-Omics Factor Analysis (MOFA), a computational method for discovering the principal sources of variation in multi-omic datasets. MOFA infers a set of (hidden) factors that capture biological and technical sources of variability. It disentangles axes of heterogeneity that are shared across multiple modalities and those specific to individual data modalities. The learnt factors enable a variety of downstream analyses, including identification of sample subgroups, data imputation, and the detection of outlier samples. We applied MOFA to a cohort of 200 patient samples of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, profiled for somatic mutations, RNA expression, DNA methylation and ex-vivo drug responses. MOFA identified major dimensions of disease heterogeneity, including immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region status, trisomy of chromosome 12 and previously underappreciated drivers, such as response to oxidative stress. In a second application, we used MOFA to analyse single-cell multiomics data, identifying coordinated transcriptional and epigenetic changes along cell differentiation.

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 · 10.15252/msb.20178124

Cites

77 of 77 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?

  • MS lesions in general, characterized by myelin loss, were captured by MOFA factors 1 and 2, whereas lesions containing foamy GPNMB+ microglia, represented by the Micro_D gene signature, were strongly associated with factor 3.

    “We found that MS lesions in general, characterized by myelin loss, were captured by factors 1 and 2, whereas lesions containing foamy GPNMB+ microglia, represented by the Micro_D gene signature, were strongly associated with factor 3 (Fig. 5b–e).”

    From Foamy microglia link oxylipins to disease progression in multiple sclerosis (2026) · cites this paper as [53]

    The Results sections on chronic lymphocytic leukaemia describe MOFA factors associated with IGHV status, trisomy 12, and drug sensitivity, not MS lesions. Searches for myelin loss, GPNMB+ microglia, and the Micro_D signature found no passage addressing the claimed lesion–factor associations. The quoted sentence presents these as the citing authors’ own findings. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In the MOFA comparison, missing percentages ranged between approximately 10% and 80%, and all methods showed increased mean squared error of prediction with increased missing percentage.

    “The missing percentages considered ranged between ~10–~80%, and all methods demonstrated increases to mean squared error of prediction with increased missing percentage.”

    From Missing data in multi-omics integration: Recent advances through artificial intelligence (2023) · cites this paper as Argelaguet et al., 2018

  • In a simulated setting, MOFA imputation resulted in lower mean squared error of prediction than feature-wise mean, SoftImpute, and k-nearest neighbor across varying percentages of missingness.

    “Comparing these approaches in a simulated setting, it was found that imputation by MOFA resulted in a lower mean squared error of prediction (i.e., imputation) relative to compared methods across varying percentages of missingness.”

    From Missing data in multi-omics integration: Recent advances through artificial intelligence (2023) · cites this paper as Argelaguet et al., 2018

  • MOFA disentangles heterogeneity shared across different omics to discover the principal source of variability.

    “Also, Argelaguet (Argelaguet et al., 2018) have developed MOFA (Multi-Omics Factor Analysis) which disentangles the heterogeneity shared across different omics to discover the principal source of variability.”

    From Using machine learning approaches for multi-omics data analysis: A review (2021) · cites this paper as Argelaguet et al., 2018

  • MOFA can integrate partially overlapping datasets.

    “It can integrate partially overlapping datasets.”

    From Using machine learning approaches for multi-omics data analysis: A review (2021) · cites this paper as Argelaguet et al., 2018

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Argelaguet, R., Velten, B., Arnol, D., Dietrich, S., Zenz, T., Marioni, J. C., Buettner, F., Huber, W., & Stegle, O.
Affiliations
  • European Bioinformatics Institute (GB)
  • European Molecular Biology Laboratory (DE)
  • University Hospital Heidelberg (DE)
  • German Cancer Research Center (DE)
Corresponding author
  • Argelaguet, Ricard
  • Velten, Britta
Venue
Molecular Systems Biology
Published
2018-06-01
Volume
14
Issue
6
Pages
e8124-e8124
ISSN
1744-4292 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2808845633
Cited by
1,510
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 376 · 2025: 303 · 2024: 203 · 2023: 178 · 2022: 124 · 2021: 155 · 2020: 103 · 2019: 58 · 2018: 9 · 2016: 1
FWCI
28.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Molecular Systems Biology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Site cant be reached (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PuSH - Publication Server of Helmholtz Zentrum München (submittedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
European Union (633974)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
Keywords
MOFA, multi-omics integration, unsupervised dimensionality reduction, hidden factors, disease heterogeneity, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, somatic mutations, DNA methylation, RNA expression, drug response, immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region, trisomy 12, oxidative stress response, single-cell multi-omics, cell differentiation, missing data imputation, outlier detection
MeSH terms
Antineoplastic Agents, Computer Simulation, Humans, Software, Models, Statistical, Leukemia, Lymphocytic, Chronic, B-Cell, Oxidative Stress, Computational Biology, Transcriptome, Datasets as Topic

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