4.4 Article

AN EMPIRICAL BAYES CHANGE-POINT MODEL FOR TRANSCRIPTOME TIME-COURSE DATA

期刊

ANNALS OF APPLIED STATISTICS
卷 15, 期 1, 页码 509-526

出版社

INST MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS-IMS
DOI: 10.1214/20-AOAS1403

关键词

Transcriptome; time series; empirical Bayes; change-point model

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [71771163]
  2. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), a component of the National Institute of Health (NIH) [UL1TR003017]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study discusses the purpose of time-course experiments and introduces a new method to address detection and identification problems, proposing a unified multiple-testing framework based on a Bayesian model.
Time-course experiments are commonly conducted to capture temporal changes. It is generally of interest to detect if any changes happen over time, which we define as a detection problem. If there is a change, it is informative to know when the change is, which we define as an identification problem. It is often desired to control Type I error rate at a nominal level while applying a testing procedure to detect or identify these changes. Quite a few analytic methods have been proposed. Most existing methods aim to solve either the detection problem or, more recently, the identification problem. Here, we propose to solve these two problems using a unified multiple-testing framework built upon an empirical Bayes change-point model. Our model provides a flexible framework that can account for sophisticated temporal gene expression patterns. We show that our testing procedure is valid and asymptotically optimal in the sense of rejecting the maximum number of null hypotheses, while the Bayesian false discovery rate (FDR) can be controlled at a predefined nominal level. Simulation studies and application to real transcriptome time-course data illustrate that our proposed model is a flexible and powerful method to capture various temporal patterns in analysis of time-course data.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据