BACKGROUND: Hidden variability is a fundamentally important issue in the context of gene expression studies. Collected tissue samples may have a wide variety of hidden effects that may alter their transcriptional landscape significantly. As a result their actual differential expression pattern can be potentially distorted, leading to inaccurate results from a genome-wide testing for the important transcripts. RESULTS: We present an R package svapls that can be used to identify several types of unknown sample-specific sources of heterogeneity in a gene expression study and adjust for them in order to provide a more accurate inference on the original expression pattern of the genes over different varieties of samples. The proposed method implements Partial Least Squares regression to extract the hidden signals of sample-specific heterogeneity in the data and uses them to find the genes that are actually correlated with the phenotype of interest. We also compare our package with three other popular softwares for testing differential gene expression along with a detailed illustration on the widely popular Golub dataset. Results from the sensitivity analyes on simulated data with widely different hidden variation patterns reveal the improved detection power of our R package compared to the other softwares along with reasonably smaller error rates. Application on the real-life dataset exhibits the efficacy of the R package in detecting potential batch effects from the dataset. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, Our R package provides the user with a simplified framework for analyzing gene expression data with a wide range of hidden variation patterns and delivering a differential gene expression analysis with substantially improved power and accuracy.The R package svapls is freely available at http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/svapls/index.html.

MOTIVATION: In a typical gene expression profiling study, our prime objective is to identify the genes that are differentially expressed between the samples from two different tissue types. Commonly, standard analysis of variance (ANOVA)/regression is implemented to identify the relative effects of these genes over the two types of samples from their respective arrays of expression levels. But, this technique becomes fundamentally flawed when there are unaccounted sources of variability in these arrays (latent variables attributable to different biological, environmental or other factors relevant in the context). These factors distort the true picture of differential gene expression between the two tissue types and introduce spurious signals of expression heterogeneity. As a result, many genes which are actually differentially expressed are not detected, whereas many others are falsely identified as positives. Moreover, these distortions can be different for different genes. Thus, it is also not possible to get rid of these variations by simple array normalizations. This both-way error can lead to a serious loss in sensitivity and specificity, thereby causing a severe inefficiency in the underlying multiple testing problem. In this work, we attempt to identify the hidden effects of the underlying latent factors in a gene expression profiling study by partial least squares (PLS) and apply ANCOVA technique with the PLS-identified signatures of these hidden effects as covariates, in order to identify the genes that are truly differentially expressed between the two concerned tissue types. RESULTS: We compare the performance of our method SVA-PLS with standard ANOVA and a relatively recent technique of surrogate variable analysis (SVA), on a wide variety of simulation settings (incorporating different effects of the hidden variable, under situations with varying signal intensities and gene groupings). In all settings, our method yields the highest sensitivity while maintaining relatively reasonable values for the specificity, false discovery rate and false non-discovery rate. Application of our method to gene expression profiling for acute megakaryoblastic leukemia shows that our method detects an additional six genes, that are missed by both the standard ANOVA method as well as SVA, but may be relevant to this disease, as can be seen from mining the existing literature.