Recent advances in sequencing, mass spectrometry, and cytometry technologies have enabled researchers to collect multiple 'omics data types from a single sample. These large datasets have led to a growing consensus that a holistic approach is needed to identify new candidate biomarkers and unveil mechanisms underlying disease etiology, a key to precision medicine. While many reviews and benchmarks have been conducted on unsupervised approaches, their supervised counterparts have received less attention in the literature and no gold standard has emerged yet. In this work, we present a thorough comparison of a selection of six methods, representative of the main families of intermediate integrative approaches (matrix factorization, multiple kernel methods, ensemble learning, and graph-based methods). As non-integrative control, random forest was performed on concatenated and separated data types. Methods were evaluated for classification performance on both simulated and real-world datasets, the latter being carefully selected to cover different medical applications (infectious diseases, oncology, and vaccines) and data modalities. A total of 15 simulation scenarios were designed from the real-world datasets to explore a large and realistic parameter space (e.g. sample size, dimensionality, class imbalance, effect size). On real data, the method comparison showed that integrative approaches performed better or equally well than their non-integrative counterpart. By contrast, DIABLO and the four random forest alternatives outperform the others across the majority of simulation scenarios. The strengths and limitations of these methods are discussed in detail as well as guidelines for future applications.

Recent advances in sequencing, mass spectrometry and cytometry technologies have enabled researchers to collect large-scale omics data from the same set of biological samples. The joint analysis of multiple omics offers the opportunity to uncover coordinated cellular processes acting across different omic layers. In this work, we present a thorough comparison of a selection of recent integrative clustering approaches, including Bayesian (BCC and MDI) and matrix factorization approaches (iCluster, moCluster, JIVE and iNMF). Based on simulations, the methods were evaluated on their sensitivity and their ability to recover both the correct number of clusters and the simulated clustering at the common and data-specific levels. Standard non-integrative approaches were also included to quantify the added value of integrative methods. For most matrix factorization methods and one Bayesian approach (BCC), the shared and specific structures were successfully recovered with high and moderate accuracy, respectively. An opposite behavior was observed on non-integrative approaches, i.e. high performances on specific structures only. Finally, we applied the methods on the Cancer Genome Atlas breast cancer data set to check whether results based on experimental data were consistent with those obtained in the simulations.

Abstract Motivation: The identification of nucleosomes along the chromatin is key to understanding their role in the regulation of gene expression and other DNA-related processes. However, current experimental methods (MNase-ChIP, MNase-Seq) sample nucleosome positions from a cell population and contain biases, making thus the precise identification of individual nucleosomes not straightforward. Recent works have only focused on the first point, where noise reduction approaches have been developed to identify nucleosome positions. Results: In this article, we propose a new approach, termed NucleoFinder, that addresses both the positional heterogeneity across cells and experimental biases by seeking nucleosomes consistently positioned in a cell population and showing a significant enrichment relative to a control sample. Despite the absence of validated dataset, we show that our approach (i) detects fewer false positives than two other nucleosome calling methods and (ii) identifies two important features of the nucleosome organization (the nucleosome spacing downstream of active promoters and the enrichment/depletion of GC/AT dinucleotides at the centre of in vitro nucleosomes) with equal or greater ability than the other two methods. Availability: The R code of NucleoFinder, an example datafile and instructions are available for download from https://sites.google.com/site/beckerjeremie/ Contact: [email protected] Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.