More Like this

1. Fundamental gene network rewiring at the second order within and across mammalian systems

   https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btab240  

   Sharma, Ruby ; Kumar, Sajal ; Song, Mingzhou ( May 2021 , Bioinformatics)

   Kelso, Janet (Ed.)

   Abstract Motivation Genetic or epigenetic events can rewire molecular networks to induce extraordinary phenotypical divergences. Among the many network rewiring approaches, no model-free statistical methods can differentiate gene-gene pattern changes not attributed to marginal changes. This may obscure fundamental rewiring from superficial changes. Results Here we introduce a model-free Sharma-Song test to determine if patterns differ in the second order, meaning that the deviation of the joint distribution from the product of marginal distributions is unequal across conditions. We prove an asymptotic chi-squared null distribution for the test statistic. Simulation studies demonstrate its advantage over alternative methods in detecting second-order differential patterns. Applying the test on three independent mammalian developmental transcriptome datasets, we report a lower frequency of co-expression network rewiring between human and mouse for the same tissue group than the frequency of rewiring between tissue groups within the same species. We also find secondorder differential patterns between microRNA promoters and genes contrasting cerebellum and liver development in mice. These patterns are enriched in the spliceosome pathway regulating tissue specificity. Complementary to previous mammalian comparative studies mostly driven by first-order effects, our findings contribute an understanding of system-wide second-order gene network rewiring within and across mammalian systems. Second-order differential patterns constitute evidence for fundamentally rewired biological circuitry due to evolution, environment, or disease. Availability The generic Sharma-Song test is available from the R package ‘DiffXTables’ at https://cran.r-project.org/package=DiffXTables. Other code and data are described in Methods. Supplementary information Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online. 

   more » « less
2. A Deep Learning-Based Real-time Seizure Detection System

   https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB50085.2020.9353623  

   Shawki, N. ; Elseify, T. ; Cap, T. ; Shah, V. ; Obeid, I. ; Picone, J. ( December 2020 , Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB))

   Obeid, Iyad Selesnick (Ed.)

   Electroencephalography (EEG) is a popular clinical monitoring tool used for diagnosing brain-related disorders such as epilepsy [1]. As monitoring EEGs in a critical-care setting is an expensive and tedious task, there is a great interest in developing real-time EEG monitoring tools to improve patient care quality and efficiency [2]. However, clinicians require automatic seizure detection tools that provide decisions with at least 75% sensitivity and less than 1 false alarm (FA) per 24 hours [3]. Some commercial tools recently claim to reach such performance levels, including the Olympic Brainz Monitor [4] and Persyst 14 [5]. In this abstract, we describe our efforts to transform a high-performance offline seizure detection system [3] into a low latency real-time or online seizure detection system. An overview of the system is shown in Figure 1. The main difference between an online versus offline system is that an online system should always be causal and has minimum latency which is often defined by domain experts. The offline system, shown in Figure 2, uses two phases of deep learning models with postprocessing [3]. The channel-based long short term memory (LSTM) model (Phase 1 or P1) processes linear frequency cepstral coefficients (LFCC) [6] features from each EEG channel separately. We use the hypotheses generated by the P1 model and create additional features that carry information about the detected events and their confidence. The P2 model uses these additional features and the LFCC features to learn the temporal and spatial aspects of the EEG signals using a hybrid convolutional neural network (CNN) and LSTM model. Finally, Phase 3 aggregates the results from both P1 and P2 before applying a final postprocessing step. The online system implements Phase 1 by taking advantage of the Linux piping mechanism, multithreading techniques, and multi-core processors. To convert Phase 1 into an online system, we divide the system into five major modules: signal preprocessor, feature extractor, event decoder, postprocessor, and visualizer. The system reads 0.1-second frames from each EEG channel and sends them to the feature extractor and the visualizer. The feature extractor generates LFCC features in real time from the streaming EEG signal. Next, the system computes seizure and background probabilities using a channel-based LSTM model and applies a postprocessor to aggregate the detected events across channels. The system then displays the EEG signal and the decisions simultaneously using a visualization module. The online system uses C++, Python, TensorFlow, and PyQtGraph in its implementation. The online system accepts streamed EEG data sampled at 250 Hz as input. The system begins processing the EEG signal by applying a TCP montage [8]. Depending on the type of the montage, the EEG signal can have either 22 or 20 channels. To enable the online operation, we send 0.1-second (25 samples) length frames from each channel of the streamed EEG signal to the feature extractor and the visualizer. Feature extraction is performed sequentially on each channel. The signal preprocessor writes the sample frames into two streams to facilitate these modules. In the first stream, the feature extractor receives the signals using stdin. In parallel, as a second stream, the visualizer shares a user-defined file with the signal preprocessor. This user-defined file holds raw signal information as a buffer for the visualizer. The signal preprocessor writes into the file while the visualizer reads from it. Reading and writing into the same file poses a challenge. The visualizer can start reading while the signal preprocessor is writing into it. To resolve this issue, we utilize a file locking mechanism in the signal preprocessor and visualizer. Each of the processes temporarily locks the file, performs its operation, releases the lock, and tries to obtain the lock after a waiting period. The file locking mechanism ensures that only one process can access the file by prohibiting other processes from reading or writing while one process is modifying the file [9]. The feature extractor uses circular buffers to save 0.3 seconds or 75 samples from each channel for extracting 0.2-second or 50-sample long center-aligned windows. The module generates 8 absolute LFCC features where the zeroth cepstral coefficient is replaced by a temporal domain energy term. For extracting the rest of the features, three pipelines are used. The differential energy feature is calculated in a 0.9-second absolute feature window with a frame size of 0.1 seconds. The difference between the maximum and minimum temporal energy terms is calculated in this range. Then, the first derivative or the delta features are calculated using another 0.9-second window. Finally, the second derivative or delta-delta features are calculated using a 0.3-second window [6]. The differential energy for the delta-delta features is not included. In total, we extract 26 features from the raw sample windows which add 1.1 seconds of delay to the system. We used the Temple University Hospital Seizure Database (TUSZ) v1.2.1 for developing the online system [10]. The statistics for this dataset are shown in Table 1. A channel-based LSTM model was trained using the features derived from the train set using the online feature extractor module. A window-based normalization technique was applied to those features. In the offline model, we scale features by normalizing using the maximum absolute value of a channel [11] before applying a sliding window approach. Since the online system has access to a limited amount of data, we normalize based on the observed window. The model uses the feature vectors with a frame size of 1 second and a window size of 7 seconds. We evaluated the model using the offline P1 postprocessor to determine the efficacy of the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique. As shown by the results of experiments 1 and 4 in Table 2, these changes give us a comparable performance to the offline model. The online event decoder module utilizes this trained model for computing probabilities for the seizure and background classes. These posteriors are then postprocessed to remove spurious detections. The online postprocessor receives and saves 8 seconds of class posteriors in a buffer for further processing. It applies multiple heuristic filters (e.g., probability threshold) to make an overall decision by combining events across the channels. These filters evaluate the average confidence, the duration of a seizure, and the channels where the seizures were observed. The postprocessor delivers the label and confidence to the visualizer. The visualizer starts to display the signal as soon as it gets access to the signal file, as shown in Figure 1 using the “Signal File” and “Visualizer” blocks. Once the visualizer receives the label and confidence for the latest epoch from the postprocessor, it overlays the decision and color codes that epoch. The visualizer uses red for seizure with the label SEIZ and green for the background class with the label BCKG. Once the streaming finishes, the system saves three files: a signal file in which the sample frames are saved in the order they were streamed, a time segmented event (TSE) file with the overall decisions and confidences, and a hypotheses (HYP) file that saves the label and confidence for each epoch. The user can plot the signal and decisions using the signal and HYP files with only the visualizer by enabling appropriate options. For comparing the performance of different stages of development, we used the test set of TUSZ v1.2.1 database. It contains 1015 EEG records of varying duration. The any-overlap performance [12] of the overall system shown in Figure 2 is 40.29% sensitivity with 5.77 FAs per 24 hours. For comparison, the previous state-of-the-art model developed on this database performed at 30.71% sensitivity with 6.77 FAs per 24 hours [3]. The individual performances of the deep learning phases are as follows: Phase 1’s (P1) performance is 39.46% sensitivity and 11.62 FAs per 24 hours, and Phase 2 detects seizures with 41.16% sensitivity and 11.69 FAs per 24 hours. We trained an LSTM model with the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique for developing the online system. Using the offline decoder and postprocessor, the model performed at 36.23% sensitivity with 9.52 FAs per 24 hours. The trained model was then evaluated with the online modules. The current performance of the overall online system is 45.80% sensitivity with 28.14 FAs per 24 hours. Table 2 summarizes the performances of these systems. The performance of the online system deviates from the offline P1 model because the online postprocessor fails to combine the events as the seizure probability fluctuates during an event. The modules in the online system add a total of 11.1 seconds of delay for processing each second of the data, as shown in Figure 3. In practice, we also count the time for loading the model and starting the visualizer block. When we consider these facts, the system consumes 15 seconds to display the first hypothesis. The system detects seizure onsets with an average latency of 15 seconds. Implementing an automatic seizure detection model in real time is not trivial. We used a variety of techniques such as the file locking mechanism, multithreading, circular buffers, real-time event decoding, and signal-decision plotting to realize the system. A video demonstrating the system is available at: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_pfi_tt/resources/videos/realtime_eeg_analysis/v2.5.1/video_2.5.1.mp4. The final conference submission will include a more detailed analysis of the online performance of each module. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research reported in this publication was most recently supported by the National Science Foundation Partnership for Innovation award number IIP-1827565 and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement Program (PA CURE). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views of any of these organizations. REFERENCES [1] A. Craik, Y. He, and J. L. Contreras-Vidal, “Deep learning for electroencephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: a review,” J. Neural Eng., vol. 16, no. 3, p. 031001, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab0ab5. [2] A. C. Bridi, T. Q. Louro, and R. C. L. Da Silva, “Clinical Alarms in intensive care: implications of alarm fatigue for the safety of patients,” Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 1034, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.3488.2513. [3] M. Golmohammadi, V. Shah, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Deep Learning Approaches for Automatic Seizure Detection from Scalp Electroencephalograms,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 233–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36844-9_8. [4] “CFM Olympic Brainz Monitor.” [Online]. Available: https://newborncare.natus.com/products-services/newborn-care-products/newborn-brain-injury/cfm-olympic-brainz-monitor. [Accessed: 17-Jul-2020]. [5] M. L. Scheuer, S. B. Wilson, A. Antony, G. Ghearing, A. Urban, and A. I. Bagic, “Seizure Detection: Interreader Agreement and Detection Algorithm Assessments Using a Large Dataset,” J. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000709. [6] A. Harati, M. Golmohammadi, S. Lopez, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved EEG Event Classification Using Differential Energy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium, 2015, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB.2015.7405421. [7] V. Shah, C. Campbell, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved Spatio-Temporal Modeling in Automated Seizure Detection using Channel-Dependent Posteriors,” Neurocomputing, 2021. [8] W. Tatum, A. Husain, S. Benbadis, and P. Kaplan, Handbook of EEG Interpretation. New York City, New York, USA: Demos Medical Publishing, 2007. [9] D. P. Bovet and C. Marco, Understanding the Linux Kernel, 3rd ed. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2005. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/understanding-the-linux/0596005652/. [10] V. Shah et al., “The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus,” Front. Neuroinform., vol. 12, pp. 1–6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00083. [11] F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1953048.2078195. [12] J. Gotman, D. Flanagan, J. Zhang, and B. Rosenblatt, “Automatic seizure detection in the newborn: Methods and initial evaluation,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 356–362, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00003-9. 

   more » « less
3. Many rice genes are differentially spliced between roots and shoots but cytokinin has minimal effect on splicing

   https://doi.org/10.1002/pld3.136  

   Freese, Nowlan H. ; Estrada, April R. ; Blakley, Ivory C. ; Duan, Jinjie ; Loraine, Ann E. ( May 2019 , Plant Direct)

   Alternatively spliced genes produce multiple spliced isoforms, called transcript variants. In differential alternative splicing, transcript variant abundance differs across sample types. Differential alternative splicing is common in animal systems and influences cellular development in many processes, but its extent and significance is not as well known in plants. To investigate differential alternative splicing in plants, we examined RNA‐Seq data from rice seedlings. The data included three biological replicates per sample type, approximately 30 million sequence alignments per replicate, and four sample types: roots and shoots treated with exogenous cytokinin delivered hydroponically or a mock treatment. Cytokinin treatment triggered expression changes in thousands of genes but had negligible effect on splicing patterns. However, many genes were differentially spliced between mock‐treated roots and shoots, indicating that our methods were sufficiently sensitive to detect differential splicing between data sets. Quantitative fragment analysis of reverse transcriptase‐PCR products made from newly prepared rice samples confirmed 9 of 10 differential splicing events between rice roots and shoots. Differential alternative splicing typically changed the relative abundance of splice variants that co‐occurred in a data set. Analysis of a similar (but less deeply sequenced) RNA‐Seq data set fromArabidopsisshowed the same pattern. In both theArabidopsisand rice RNA‐Seq data sets, most genes annotated as alternatively spliced had small minor variant frequencies. Of splicing choices with abundant support for minor forms, most alternative splicing events were located within the protein‐coding sequence and maintained the annotated reading frame. A tool for visualizing protein annotations in the context of genomic sequence (ProtAnnot) together with a genome browser (Integrated Genome Browser) were used to visualize and assess effects of differential splicing on gene function. In general, differentially spliced regions coincided with conserved protein domains, indicating that differential alternative splicing is likely to affect protein function between root and shoot tissue in rice.

    

   more » « less
4. OGUs enable effective, phylogeny-aware analysis of even shallow metagenome community structures

   https://doi.org/2021.04.04.438427  

   Qiyun Zhu ; Shi Huang ; Antonio Gonzalez ; Imran McGrath ; Daniel McDonald ; Niina Haiminen ; George Armstrong ; Yoshiki Vázquez-Baeza ; Julian Yu ; Justin Kuczynski ; et al ( April 2021 , bioRxiv)

   We introduce Operational Genomic Unit (OGU), a metagenome analysis strategy that directly exploits sequence alignment hits to individual reference genomes as the minimum unit for assessing the diversity of microbial communities and their relevance to environmental factors. This approach is independent from taxonomic classification, granting the possibility of maximal resolution of community composition, and organizes features into an accurate hierarchy using a phylogenomic tree. The outputs are suitable for contemporary analytical protocols for community ecology, differential abundance and supervised learning while supporting phylogenetic methods, such as UniFrac and phylofactorization, that are seldomly applied to shotgun metagenomics despite being prevalent in 16S rRNA gene amplicon studies. As demonstrated in one synthetic and two real-world case studies, the OGU method produces biologically meaningful patterns from microbiome datasets. Such patterns further remain detectable at very low metagenomic sequencing depths. Compared with taxonomic unit-based analyses implemented in currently adopted metagenomics tools, and the analysis of 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequence variants, this method shows superiority in informing biologically relevant insights, including stronger correlation with body environment and host sex on the Human Microbiome Project dataset, and more accurate prediction of human age by the gut microbiomes in the Finnish population. We provide Woltka, a bioinformatics tool to implement this method, with full integration with the QIIME 2 package and the Qiita web platform, to facilitate OGU adoption in future metagenomics studies. Importance Shotgun metagenomics is a powerful, yet computationally challenging, technique compared to 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing for decoding the composition and structure of microbial communities. However, current analyses of metagenomic data are primarily based on taxonomic classification, which is limited in feature resolution compared to 16S rRNA amplicon sequence variant analysis. To solve these challenges, we introduce Operational Genomic Units (OGUs), which are the individual reference genomes derived from sequence alignment results, without further assigning them taxonomy. The OGU method advances current read-based metagenomics in two dimensions: (i) providing maximal resolution of community composition while (ii) permitting use of phylogeny-aware tools. Our analysis of real-world datasets shows several advantages over currently adopted metagenomic analysis methods and the finest-grained 16S rRNA analysis methods in predicting biological traits. We thus propose the adoption of OGU as standard practice in metagenomic studies. 

   more » « less
5. Airpart: Interpretable statistical models for analyzing allelic imbalance in single-cell datasets

   https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btac212  

   Mu, Wancen ; Sarkar, Hirak ; Srivastava, Avi ; Choi, Kwangbom ; Patro, Rob ; Love, Michael I ( April 2022 , Bioinformatics)

   Kendziorski, Christina (Ed.)

   Abstract Motivation Allelic expression analysis aids in detection of cis-regulatory mechanisms of genetic variation which produce allelic imbalance (AI) in heterozygotes. Measuring AI in bulk data lacking time or spatial resolution has the limitation that cell-type-specific (CTS), spatial-, or time-dependent AI signals may be dampened or not detected. Results We introduce a statistical method airpart for identifying differential CTS AI from single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) data, or other spatially- or time-resolved datasets. airpart outputs discrete partitions of data, pointing to groups of genes and cells under common mechanisms of cis-genetic regulation. In order to account for low counts in single-cell data, our method uses a Generalized Fused Lasso with Binomial likelihood for partitioning groups of cells by AI signal, and a hierarchical Bayesian model for AI statistical inference. In simulation, airpart accurately detected partitions of cell types by their AI and had lower RMSE of allelic ratio estimates than existing methods. In real data, airpart identified DAI patterns across cell states and could be used to define trends of AI signal over spatial or time axes. Availability The airpart package is available as an R/Bioconductor package at https://bioconductor.org/packages/airpart. 

   more » « less