IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pgen00/1011423.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

STAREG: Statistical replicability analysis of high throughput experiments with applications to spatial transcriptomic studies

Author

Listed:
  • Yan Li
  • Xiang Zhou
  • Rui Chen
  • Xianyang Zhang
  • Hongyuan Cao

Abstract

Replicable signals from different yet conceptually related studies provide stronger scientific evidence and more powerful inference. We introduce STAREG, a statistical method for replicability analysis of high throughput experiments, and apply it to analyze spatial transcriptomic studies. STAREG uses summary statistics from multiple studies of high throughput experiments and models the the joint distribution of p-values accounting for the heterogeneity of different studies. It effectively controls the false discovery rate (FDR) and has higher power by information borrowing. Moreover, it provides different rankings of important genes. With the EM algorithm in combination with pool-adjacent-violator-algorithm (PAVA), STAREG is scalable to datasets with millions of genes without any tuning parameters. Analyzing two pairs of spatially resolved transcriptomic datasets, we are able to make biological discoveries that otherwise cannot be obtained by using existing methods.Author summary: Irreplicable research wastes time, money, and/or resources. Approximately $28 billion is estimated to be spent on preclinical research that cannot be replicated every year in the United States alone. Possible causes of irreplicable research may include experimental design, laboratory practices, and data analysis. We focus on data analysis. The past two decades have witnessed the expansion and increased availability of genomic data from high-throughput experiments. Due to privacy concerns or logistic reasons, raw data can be difficult to access but summary data such as p-values are readily available. We introduce STAREG, which jointly analyzes p-values from multiple genomic datasets that target the same scientific question with different populations or different technologies. This allows us to have more convincing and robust findings. STAREG is computationally scalable with solid statistical analysis. Moreover, it is versatile, platform-independent, and only requires p-values as input. By analyzing data sets from spatially resolved transcriptomic studies, we make biological discoveries that otherwise cannot be obtained with existing methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Yan Li & Xiang Zhou & Rui Chen & Xianyang Zhang & Hongyuan Cao, 2024. "STAREG: Statistical replicability analysis of high throughput experiments with applications to spatial transcriptomic studies," PLOS Genetics, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(10), pages 1-19, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pgen00:1011423
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1011423
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1011423
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1011423&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pgen.1011423?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. C. Glenn Begley & Lee M. Ellis, 2012. "Raise standards for preclinical cancer research," Nature, Nature, vol. 483(7391), pages 531-533, March.
    2. Leonard P Freedman & Iain M Cockburn & Timothy S Simcoe, 2015. "The Economics of Reproducibility in Preclinical Research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-9, June.
    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. Colin F. Camerer & Anna Dreber & Felix Holzmeister & Teck-Hua Ho & Jürgen Huber & Magnus Johannesson & Michael Kirchler & Gideon Nave & Brian A. Nosek & Thomas Pfeiffer & Adam Altmejd & Nick Buttrick , 2018. "Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(9), pages 637-644, September.
    2. Kiri, Bralind & Lacetera, Nicola & Zirulia, Lorenzo, 2018. "Above a swamp: A theory of high-quality scientific production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 827-839.
    3. Mueller-Langer, Frank & Fecher, Benedikt & Harhoff, Dietmar & Wagner, Gert G., 2019. "Replication studies in economics—How many and which papers are chosen for replication, and why?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 62-83.
    4. Malika Ihle & Isabel S. Winney & Anna Krystalli & Michael Croucher, 2017. "Striving for transparent and credible research: practical guidelines for behavioral ecologists," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 28(2), pages 348-354.
    5. Bernhard Voelkl & Lucile Vogt & Emily S Sena & Hanno Würbel, 2018. "Reproducibility of preclinical animal research improves with heterogeneity of study samples," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-13, February.
    6. Camerer, Colin & Dreber, Anna & Forsell, Eskil & Ho, Teck-Hua & Huber, Jurgen & Johannesson, Magnus & Kirchler, Michael & Almenberg, Johan & Altmejd, Adam & Chan, Taizan & Heikensten, Emma & Holzmeist, 2016. "Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in Economics," MPRA Paper 75461, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Joanna Chataway & Sarah Parks & Elta Smith, 2017. "How Will Open Science Impact on University-Industry Collaboration?," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 11(2), pages 44-53.
    8. Michaël Bikard & Matt Marx, 2020. "Bridging Academia and Industry: How Geographic Hubs Connect University Science and Corporate Technology," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(8), pages 3425-3443, August.
    9. Michaël Bikard, 2018. "Made in Academia: The Effect of Institutional Origin on Inventors’ Attention to Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(5), pages 818-836, October.
    10. repec:plo:pone00:0147140 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. repec:plo:pone00:0215221 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Hussinger, Katrin & Pellens, Maikel, 2019. "Guilt by association: How scientific misconduct harms prior collaborators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 516-530.
    13. Seibold, Heidi & Charlton, Alethea & Boulesteix, Anne-Laure & Hoffmann, Sabine, 2020. "Statisticians roll up your sleeves! There’s a crisis to be solved," MetaArXiv frta7, Center for Open Science.
    14. Watzinger, Martin & Schnitzer, Monika, 2019. "Standing on the Shoulders of Science," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 215, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    15. Andreoli-Versbach, Patrick & Mueller-Langer, Frank, 2014. "Open access to data: An ideal professed but not practised," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1621-1633.
    16. repec:plo:pbio00:3000763 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Peter Harremoës, 2019. "Replication Papers," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-8, July.
    18. Bettina Bert & Céline Heinl & Justyna Chmielewska & Franziska Schwarz & Barbara Grune & Andreas Hensel & Matthias Greiner & Gilbert Schönfelder, 2019. "Refining animal research: The Animal Study Registry," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(10), pages 1-12, October.
    19. Mark J. McCabe & Frank Mueller-Langer, 2019. "Does Data Disclosure Increase Citations? Empirical Evidence from a Natural Experiment in Leading Economics Journals," JRC Working Papers on Digital Economy 2019-02, Joint Research Centre.
    20. Nathalie Percie du Sert & Viki Hurst & Amrita Ahluwalia & Sabina Alam & Marc T Avey & Monya Baker & William J Browne & Alejandra Clark & Innes C Cuthill & Ulrich Dirnagl & Michael Emerson & Paul Garne, 2020. "The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-12, July.
    21. Vivian Leung & Frédérik Rousseau-Blass & Guy Beauchamp & Daniel S J Pang, 2018. "ARRIVE has not ARRIVEd: Support for the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of in vivo Experiments) guidelines does not improve the reporting quality of papers in animal welfare, analgesia or anesthesi," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-13, May.
    22. Hajko, Vladimír, 2017. "The failure of Energy-Economy Nexus: A meta-analysis of 104 studies," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 771-787.
    23. Oliver Braganza, 2020. "A simple model suggesting economically rational sample-size choice drives irreproducibility," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-19, March.

    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:pgen00:1011423. 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: plosgenetics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/ .

    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.