IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1009838.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating supervised and unsupervised background noise correction in human gut microbiome data

Author

Listed:
  • Leah Briscoe
  • Brunilda Balliu
  • Sriram Sankararaman
  • Eran Halperin
  • Nandita R Garud

Abstract

The ability to predict human phenotypes and identify biomarkers of disease from metagenomic data is crucial for the development of therapeutics for microbiome-associated diseases. However, metagenomic data is commonly affected by technical variables unrelated to the phenotype of interest, such as sequencing protocol, which can make it difficult to predict phenotype and find biomarkers of disease. Supervised methods to correct for background noise, originally designed for gene expression and RNA-seq data, are commonly applied to microbiome data but may be limited because they cannot account for unmeasured sources of variation. Unsupervised approaches address this issue, but current methods are limited because they are ill-equipped to deal with the unique aspects of microbiome data, which is compositional, highly skewed, and sparse. We perform a comparative analysis of the ability of different denoising transformations in combination with supervised correction methods as well as an unsupervised principal component correction approach that is presently used in other domains but has not been applied to microbiome data to date. We find that the unsupervised principal component correction approach has comparable ability in reducing false discovery of biomarkers as the supervised approaches, with the added benefit of not needing to know the sources of variation apriori. However, in prediction tasks, it appears to only improve prediction when technical variables contribute to the majority of variance in the data. As new and larger metagenomic datasets become increasingly available, background noise correction will become essential for generating reproducible microbiome analyses.Author summary: The human gut microbiome is known to play a major role in health and is associated with many diseases including colorectal cancer, obesity, and diabetes. The prediction of host phenotypes and identification of biomarkers of disease is essential for harnessing the therapeutic potential of the microbiome. However, many metagenomic datasets are affected by technical variables that introduce unwanted variation that can confound the ability to predict phenotypes and identify biomarkers. Currently, supervised methods originally designed for gene expression and RNA-seq data are commonly applied to microbiome data for correction of background noise, but they are limited in that they cannot correct for unmeasured sources of variation. Unsupervised approaches address this issue, but current methods are limited because they are ill-equipped to deal with the unique aspects of microbiome data, which is compositional, highly skewed, and sparse. We perform a comparative analysis of the ability of different denoising transformations in combination with supervised correction methods as well as an unsupervised principal component correction approach and find that all correction approaches reduce false positives for biomarker discovery. In the task of predicting phenotypes, different approaches have varying success where the unsupervised correction can improve prediction when technical variables contribute to the majority of variance in the data. As new and larger metagenomic datasets become increasingly available, background noise correction will become essential for generating reproducible microbiome analyses.

Suggested Citation

  • Leah Briscoe & Brunilda Balliu & Sriram Sankararaman & Eran Halperin & Nandita R Garud, 2022. "Evaluating supervised and unsupervised background noise correction in human gut microbiome data," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(2), pages 1-25, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1009838
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009838
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009838
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009838&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009838?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeffrey T Leek & John D Storey, 2007. "Capturing Heterogeneity in Gene Expression Studies by Surrogate Variable Analysis," PLOS Genetics, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(9), pages 1-12, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:jss:jstsof:40:i14 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:plo:pgen00:1002078 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Emanuele Aliverti & Kristian Lum & James E. Johndrow & David B. Dunson, 2021. "Removing the influence of group variables in high‐dimensional predictive modelling," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(3), pages 791-811, July.
    4. Seungchul Baek & Yen‐Yi Ho & Yanyuan Ma, 2020. "Using sufficient direction factor model to analyze latent activities associated with breast cancer survival," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 76(4), pages 1340-1350, December.
    5. Griffin, Maryclare & Hoff, Peter D., 2019. "Lasso ANOVA decompositions for matrix and tensor data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 181-194.
    6. Delaram Pouyabahar & Tallulah Andrews & Gary D. Bader, 2025. "Interpretable single-cell factor decomposition using sciRED," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-16, December.
    7. Chee Ho H’ng & Shanika L. Amarasinghe & Boya Zhang & Hojin Chang & Xinli Qu & David R. Powell & Alberto Rosello-Diez, 2024. "Compensatory growth and recovery of cartilage cytoarchitecture after transient cell death in fetal mouse limbs," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, December.
    8. Mark Reimers, 2010. "Making Informed Choices about Microarray Data Analysis," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(5), pages 1-7, May.
    9. Leek Jeffrey T & Storey John D., 2011. "The Joint Null Criterion for Multiple Hypothesis Tests," Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-22, June.
    10. Nicoló Fusi & Oliver Stegle & Neil D Lawrence, 2012. "Joint Modelling of Confounding Factors and Prominent Genetic Regulators Provides Increased Accuracy in Genetical Genomics Studies," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, January.
    11. Yuto Hasegawa & Juhyun Kim & Gianluca Ursini & Yan Jouroukhin & Xiaolei Zhu & Yu Miyahara & Feiyi Xiong & Samskruthi Madireddy & Mizuho Obayashi & Beat Lutz & Akira Sawa & Solange P. Brown & Mikhail V, 2023. "Microglial cannabinoid receptor type 1 mediates social memory deficits in mice produced by adolescent THC exposure and 16p11.2 duplication," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-19, December.
    12. Sudhir Varma, 2020. "Blind estimation and correction of microarray batch effect," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-15, April.
    13. Friguet, Chloé & Causeur, David, 2011. "Estimation of the proportion of true null hypotheses in high-dimensional data under dependence," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 55(9), pages 2665-2676, September.
    14. Xuemeng Zhou & Tsz Wing Sam & Ah Young Lee & Danny Leung, 2021. "Mouse strain-specific polymorphic provirus functions as cis-regulatory element leading to epigenomic and transcriptomic variations," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-18, December.
    15. Michael W Nagle & Jeanne C Latourelle & Adam Labadorf & Alexandra Dumitriu & Tiffany C Hadzi & Thomas G Beach & Richard H Myers, 2016. "The 4p16.3 Parkinson Disease Risk Locus Is Associated with GAK Expression and Genes Involved with the Synaptic Vesicle Membrane," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-14, August.
    16. Oliver Stegle & Leopold Parts & Richard Durbin & John Winn, 2010. "A Bayesian Framework to Account for Complex Non-Genetic Factors in Gene Expression Levels Greatly Increases Power in eQTL Studies," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(5), pages 1-11, May.
    17. Gao Wang & Abhishek Sarkar & Peter Carbonetto & Matthew Stephens, 2020. "A simple new approach to variable selection in regression, with application to genetic fine mapping," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 82(5), pages 1273-1300, December.
    18. Kaido Lepik & Tarmo Annilo & Viktorija Kukuškina & eQTLGen Consortium & Kai Kisand & Zoltán Kutalik & Pärt Peterson & Hedi Peterson, 2017. "C-reactive protein upregulates the whole blood expression of CD59 - an integrative analysis," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-20, September.
    19. Zhang, Lyuou & Zhou, Wen & Wang, Haonan, 2021. "A semiparametric latent factor model for large scale temporal data with heteroscedasticity," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    20. Stephen Salerno Jr. & Mahya Mehrmohamadi & Maria V Liberti & Muting Wan & Martin T Wells & James G Booth & Jason W Locasale, 2017. "RRmix: A method for simultaneous batch effect correction and analysis of metabolomics data in the absence of internal standards," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-19, June.
    21. Chuan Gao & Ian C McDowell & Shiwen Zhao & Christopher D Brown & Barbara E Engelhardt, 2016. "Context Specific and Differential Gene Co-expression Networks via Bayesian Biclustering," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(7), pages 1-39, July.
    22. Anna Papiez & Jonathan Pioch & Hans-Joachim Mollenkopf & Björn Corleis & Anca Dorhoi & Joanna Polanska, 2024. "Relative effect size-based profiles as an alternative to differentiation analysis in multi-species single-cell transcriptional studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(6), pages 1-15, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1009838. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.