A graph theoretic approach to testing associations between disparate sources of functional genomic data

The last few years have seen the advent of high-throughput technologies to analyze various properties of the transcriptome and proteome of several organisms. The congruency of these different data sources, or lack thereof, can shed light on the mechanisms that govern cellular function. A central challenge for bioinformatics research is to develop a unified framework for combining the multiple sources of functional genomics information and testing associations between them, thus obtaining a robust and integrated view of the underlying biology. We present a graph theoretic approach to test the significance of the association between multiple disparate sources of functional genomics data by proposing two statistical tests, namely edge permutation and node label permutation tests. We demonstrate the use of the proposed tests by finding significant association between a Gene Ontology-derived "predictome" and data obtained from mRNA expression and phenotypic experiments for Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Moreover, we employ the graph theoretic framework to recast a surprising discrepancy presented in Giaever et al. (2002) between gene expression and knockout phenotype, using expression data from a different set of experiments.

A unified approach to modeling multivariate binary data using copulas over partitions

Many seemingly disparate approaches for marginal modeling have been developed in recent years. We demonstrate that many current approaches for marginal modeling of correlated binary outcomes produce likelihoods that are equivalent to the proposed copula-based models herein. These general copula models of underlying latent threshold random variables yield likelihood based models for marginal fixed effects estimation and interpretation in the analysis of correlated binary data. Moreover, we propose a nomenclature and set of model relationships that substantially elucidates the complex area of marginalized models for binary data. A diverse collection of didactic mathematical and numerical examples are given to illustrate concepts.

TRENDS IN PARTICULATE MATTER AND MORTALITY: AN APPROACH TO THE ASSESSMENT OF UNMEASURED CONFOUNDING

We propose a method for diagnosing confounding bias under a model which links a spatially and temporally varying exposure and health outcome. We decompose the association into orthogonal components, corresponding to distinct spatial and temporal scales of variation. If the model fully controls for confounding, the exposure effect estimates should be equal at the different temporal and spatial scales. We show that the overall exposure effect estimate is a weighted average of the scale-specific exposure effect estimates. We use this approach to estimate the association between monthly averages of fine particles (PM2.5) over the preceding 12 months and monthly mortality rates in 113 U.S. counties from 2000-2002. We decompose the association between PM2.5 and mortality into two components: 1) the association between “national trends” in PM2.5 and mortality; and 2) the association between “local trends,” defined as county-specificdeviations from national trends. This second component provides evidence as to whether counties having steeper declines in PM2.5 also have steeper declines in mortality relative to their national trends. We find that the exposure effect estimates are different at these two spatio-temporalscales, which raises concerns about confounding bias. We believe that the association between trends in PM2.5 and mortality at the national scale is more likely to be confounded than is the association between trends in PM2.5 and mortality at the local scale. If the association at the national scale is set aside, there is little evidence of an association between 12-month exposure to PM2.5 and mortality.

A SURVEY OF THE LIKELIHOOD APPROACH TO BIOEQUIVALENCE TRIALS

Bioequivalence trials are abbreviated clinical trials whereby a generic drug or new formulation is evaluated to determine if it is "equivalent" to a corresponding previously approved brand-name drug or formulation. In this manuscript, we survey the process of testing bioequivalence and advocate the likelihood paradigm for representing the resulting data as evidence. We emphasize the unique conflicts between hypothesis testing and confidence intervals in this area - which we believe are indicative of the existence of the systemic defects in the frequentist approach - that the likelihood paradigm avoids. We suggest the direct use of profile likelihoods for evaluating bioequivalence and examine the main properties of profile likelihoods and estimated likelihoods under simulation. This simulation study shows that profile likelihoods are a reasonable alternative to the (unknown) true likelihood for a range of parameters commensurate with bioequivalence research. Our study also shows that the standard methods in the current practice of bioequivalence trials offers only weak evidence from the evidential point of view.