Cluster analysis and display of genome-wide expression patterns.
Journal: 1999/January - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
ISSN: 0027-8424
PUBMED: 9843981
Abstract:
A system of cluster analysis for genome-wide expression data from DNA microarray hybridization is described that uses standard statistical algorithms to arrange genes according to similarity in pattern of gene expression. The output is displayed graphically, conveying the clustering and the underlying expression data simultaneously in a form intuitive for biologists. We have found in the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae that clustering gene expression data groups together efficiently genes of known similar function, and we find a similar tendency in human data. Thus patterns seen in genome-wide expression experiments can be interpreted as indications of the status of cellular processes. Also, coexpression of genes of known function with poorly characterized or novel genes may provide a simple means of gaining leads to the functions of many genes for which information is not available currently.
Relations:
Content
Citations
(4K+)
References
(12)
Clinical trials
(1)
Organisms
(2)
Processes
(4)
Affiliates
(2)
Similar articles
Articles by the same authors
Discussion board
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 95(25): 14863-14868

Cluster analysis and display of genome-wide expression patterns

Department of Genetics and Department of Biochemistry and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Avenue, Stanford, CA 94305
To whom reprint requests should be addressed. e-mail: ude.drofnats.emoneg@nietstob.
Contributed by David Botstein
Contributed by David Botstein
Accepted 1998 Oct 13.

Abstract

A system of cluster analysis for genome-wide expression data from DNA microarray hybridization is described that uses standard statistical algorithms to arrange genes according to similarity in pattern of gene expression. The output is displayed graphically, conveying the clustering and the underlying expression data simultaneously in a form intuitive for biologists. We have found in the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae that clustering gene expression data groups together efficiently genes of known similar function, and we find a similar tendency in human data. Thus patterns seen in genome-wide expression experiments can be interpreted as indications of the status of cellular processes. Also, coexpression of genes of known function with poorly characterized or novel genes may provide a simple means of gaining leads to the functions of many genes for which information is not available currently.

Abstract

The rapid advance of genome-scale sequencing has driven the development of methods to exploit this information by characterizing biological processes in new ways. The knowledge of the coding sequences of virtually every gene in an organism, for instance, invites development of technology to study the expression of all of them at once, because the study of gene expression of genes one by one has already provided a wealth of biological insight. To this end, a variety of techniques has evolved to monitor, rapidly and efficiently, transcript abundance for all of an organism’s genes (13). Within the mass of numbers produced by these techniques, which amount to hundreds of data points for thousands or tens of thousands of genes, is an immense amount of biological information. In this paper we address the problem of analyzing and presenting information on this genomic scale.

A natural first step in extracting this information is to examine the extremes, e.g., genes with significant differential expression in two individual samples or in a time series after a given treatment. This simple technique can be extremely efficient, for example, in screens for potential tumor markers or drug targets. However, such analyses do not address the full potential of genome-scale experiments to alter our understanding of cellular biology by providing, through an inclusive analysis of the entire repertoire of transcripts, a continuing comprehensive window into the state of a cell as it goes through a biological process. What is needed instead is a holistic approach to analysis of genomic data that focuses on illuminating order in the entire set of observations, allowing biologists to develop an integrated understanding of the process being studied.

A natural basis for organizing gene expression data is to group together genes with similar patterns of expression. The first step to this end is to adopt a mathematical description of similarity. For any series of measurements, a number of sensible measures of similarity in the behavior of two genes can be used, such as the Euclidean distance, angle, or dot products of the two n-dimensional vectors representing a series of n measurements. We have found that the standard correlation coefficient (i.e., the dot product of two normalized vectors) conforms well to the intuitive biological notion of what it means for two genes to be “coexpressed;” this may be because this statistic captures similarity in “shape” but places no emphasis on the magnitude of the two series of measurements.

It is not the purpose of this paper to survey the various methods available to cluster genes on the basis of their expression patterns, but rather to illustrate how such methods can be useful to biologists in the analysis of gene expression data. We aim to use these methods to organize, but not to alter, tables containing primary data; we have thus used methods that can be reduced, in the end, to a reordering of lists of genes. Clustering methods can be divided into two general classes, designated supervised and unsupervised clustering (4). In supervised clustering, vectors are classified with respect to known reference vectors. In unsupervised clustering, no predefined reference vectors are used. As we have little a priori knowledge of the complete repertoire of expected gene expression patterns for any condition, we have favored unsupervised methods or hybrid (unsupervised followed by supervised) approaches.

Although various clustering methods can usefully organize tables of gene expression measurements, the resulting ordered but still massive collection of numbers remains difficult to assimilate. Therefore, we always combine clustering methods with a graphical representation of the primary data by representing each data point with a color that quantitatively and qualitatively reflects the original experimental observations. The end product is a representation of complex gene expression data that, through statistical organization and graphical display, allows biologists to assimilate and explore the data in a natural intuitive manner.

To illustrate this approach, we have applied pairwise average-linkage cluster analysis (5) to gene expression data collected in our laboratories. This method is a form of hierarchical clustering, familiar to most biologists through its application in sequence and phylogenetic analysis. Relationships among objects (genes) are represented by a tree whose branch lengths reflect the degree of similarity between the objects, as assessed by a pairwise similarity function such as that described above. In sequence comparison, these methods are used to infer the evolutionary history of sequences being compared. Whereas no such underlying tree exists for expression patterns of genes, such methods are useful in their ability to represent varying degrees of similarity and more distant relationships among groups of closely related genes, as well as in requiring few assumptions about the nature of the data. The computed trees can be used to order genes in the original data table, so that genes or groups of genes with similar expression patterns are adjacent. The ordered table can then be displayed graphically, as above, with a representation of the tree to indicate the relationships among genes.

Click here to view.

Acknowledgments

We thank J. De Risi for excellent technical assistance and many useful suggestions and the staff of the Saccharomyces Genome Database. We also thank J. Cuoczo and C. Kaiser for the use of unpublished results. This work was supported by a grants from the National Institutes of Health (GM 46406, HG 00983, and CA77097). P.O.B. is an associate investigator with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. P.T.S. was supported by a training grant from the National Eye Institute (Bethesda, MD). M.B.E. was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from the Alfred E. Sloan Foundation (New York, NY).

Acknowledgments

References

  • 1. Schena M, Shalon D, Davis R W, Brown P O. Science. 1995;270:467–470.[PubMed]
  • 2. Velculescu V E, Zhang L, Vogelstein B, Kinzler K W. Science. 1995;270:484–487.[PubMed]
  • 3. Lockhart D J, Dong H, Byrne M C, Follettie M T, Gallo M V, Chee M S, Mittmann M, Wang C, Kobayashi M, Horton H, et al Nat Biotechnol. 1996;14:1675–1680.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 4. Kohonen T Self-Organizing Maps. New York: Springer; 1997. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 5. Sokal R R, Michener C D. Univ Kans Sci Bull. 1958;38:1409–1438.[PubMed]
  • 6. Schena M, Shalon D, Heller R, Chai A, Brown P O, Davis R W. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1996;93:10614–10619.
  • 7. Shalon D, Smith S J, Brown P O. Genome Res. 1996;6:639–645.[PubMed]
  • 8. DeRisi J L, Iyer V R, Brown P O. Science. 1997;278:680–686.[PubMed]
  • 9. Spellman, P. T., Sherlock, G., Iyer, V. R., Zhang, M., Anders, K., Eisen, M. B., Brown, P. O., Botstein, D. & Futcher, B. (1998). Mol. Biol. Cell, in press.
  • 10. Chu S, DeRisi J, Eisen M, Mulholland J, Botstein D, Brown P O, Herskowitz I. Science. 1998;282:699–705.[PubMed]
  • 11. Iyer, V. R., Eisen, M. B., Ross, D. R., Schuler, G., Moore, T., Lee, J. C. F., Trent, J. M., Hudson, J., Boguski, M., Lashkari, D., et al. (1998) Science, in press.
  • 12. Cherry J M, Ball C, Weng S, Juvik G, Schmidt R, Adler C, Dunn B, Dwight S, Riles L, Mortimer R K, et al Nature (London) 1997;387:67–73.[Google Scholar]
  • 13. Kief D R, Warner J R. Mol Cell Biol. 1981;1:1007–1015.
  • 14. Kraakman L S, Griffioen G, Zerp S, Groeneveld P, Thevelein J M, Mager W H, Planta R J. Mol Gen Genet. 1993;239:196–204.[PubMed]
  • 15. Kwast K E, Burke P V, Poyton R O. J Exp Biol. 1998;201:1177–1195.[PubMed]
  • 16. Hereford L M, Osley M A, Ludwig T R, 2nd, McLaughlin C S. Cell. 1981;24:367–375.[PubMed]
Collaboration tool especially designed for Life Science professionals.Drag-and-drop any entity to your messages.