Ml. Chow et al., Identifying marker genes in transcription profiling data using a mixture of feature relevance experts, PHYSIOL GEN, 5(2), 2001, pp. 99-111
Transcription profiling experiments permit the expression levels of many ge
nes to be measured simultaneously. Given profiling data from two types of s
amples, genes that most distinguish the samples (marker genes) are good can
didates for subsequent in-depth experimental studies and developing decisio
n support systems for diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring. This work propo
ses a mixture of feature relevance experts as a method for identifying mark
er genes and illustrates the idea using published data from samples labeled
as acute lymphoblastic and myeloid leukemia (ALL, AML). A feature relevanc
e expert implements an algorithm that calculates how well a gene distinguis
hes samples, reorders genes according to this relevance measure, and uses a
supervised learning method [here, support vector machines (SVMs)] to deter
mine the generalization performances of different nested gene subsets. The
mixture of three feature relevance experts examined implement two existing
and one novel feature relevance measures. For each expert, a gene subset co
nsisting of the top 50 genes distinguished ALL from AML samples as complete
ly as all 7,070 genes. The 125 genes at the union of the top 50s are plausi
ble markers for a prototype decision support system. Chromosomal aberration
and other data support the prediction that the three genes at the intersec
tion of the top 50s, cystatin C, azurocidin, and adipsin, are good targets
for investigating the basic biology of ALL/AML. The same data were employed
to identify markers that distinguish samples based on their labels of T ce
ll/B cell, peripheral blood/bone marrow, and male/female. Selenoprotein W m
ay discriminate T cells from B cells. Results from analysis of transcriptio
n profiling data from tumor/nontumor colon adenocarcinoma samples support t
he general utility of the aforementioned approach. Theoretical issues such
as choosing SVM kernels and their parameters, training and evaluating featu
re relevance experts, and the impact of potentially mislabeled samples on m
arker identification (feature selection) are discussed.