The same latent structure underneath gene expression and copy number variation data to make inference on a clinical Gracillin custom synthesis outcome of new patients in the study, in particular ut , the pCR of patients to treatment. The chosen approach is to state a model for ygt and wbt , p(wbt ,ygt Dh) , and to assume a Bernoulli distribution for ut . This leads us to the sought model p(ut Dwbt ,ygt ) and posterior probabilities of ut being 1 give us a measure for the prediction of the outcome of the new patient. The advantages of our model with respect to, for example, a simple logistic regression p(ut Dygt ,wbt ) are mainly the noiseTraining sample Positive pCR No pCR TOT 20 74Test sample 11 11TOT 31 85doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068071.tBayesian Models and Integration Genomic PlatformsFigure 4. Histograms of the posterior probabilities of positive pCR in the integrated model (A) and in the marginal models, respectively on gene expression (B) and CNA data (C). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068071.greduction achieved through the assumption of a latent structure underneath our data, i.e. the latent POE scores for gene expression and the natural variable selection allowed within the model itself; wu yu indicators dg and dg in equation (4) and (5) (with Bernoulli priors with probability 1{p and p very close to 1) allow for a reduction of the number of covariates (genes) and avoid the problem of overestimation.In summary, as a new patient comes into a study and we have measurements of his gene 18204824 expression and copy number variation, we run the model p(wbt ,ygt Dh) and assume for his clinical outcome ut a Bernoulli 23148522 distribution with probability p . Through MCMC methods we obtain updated posterior probabilities of ut being 1 that give us a measure for the prediction of his outcome. In this particular case the outcome refers to the pCR to AKT inhibitor 2 theFigure 5. Comparison between ROC curves obtained with the marginal and integrated model. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068071.gFigure 6. Comparison between ROC curves obtained with the LASSO logistic regression, respectively using single or joint platforms. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068071.gBayesian Models and Integration Genomic PlatformsTable 3. List of genes which jointly show over expression and copy number amplification in TN group.Symbol E2F3 MYC PLCG2 PEPD C12orf32 C10orf10 FOLH1 GTPBP2 KARS CD14 SHCBP1 CHD1L CCDCEntrezID 1871 4609 5336 5184 83695 11067 2346 54676 3735 929 79801 9557 79080 57823 1503 3654 56913 11329 204 9843 7431 1001 54802 2619 3122 6489 53827 716 8434 56935 79817 3133 11170 3383 3641 23683 6515 5817 22974 10397 4794 10469 9473 23590 9047 29761 10473 140578Cytoband 6p22 8q24.21 16q24.1 19q13.11 12p13.33 10q11.21 11p11.2 6p21 16q23.1 5q22-q32 16q11.2 1q12 11q12.2 1q23.1-q24.1 1p34.1 Xq28 7p14-p13 6p21 1p34 Xq11-q12 10p13 16q22.1 1p34.2 9q21.3-q22 6p21.3 12p12.1-p11.2 19q13.12 12p13 9p13.3 11q21 9p21.2 6p21.3 3p21.1 19p13.3-p13.2 9p24 2p21 12p13.3 19q13.2 20q11.2 8q24.3 6p21.1 19p13.3-p13.2 1p35.3 10p12.1 1q21 21q11.2 6p21.3 21q11.2 9p13.postprob 0.951 0.954 0.954 0.954 0.954 0.954 0.955 0.956 0.957 0.958 0.959 0.959 0.962 0.962 0.962 0.964 0.965 0.965 0.966 0.966 0.967 0.968 0.969 0.971 0.972 0.973 0.975 0.975 0.976 0.976 0.977 0.978 0.979 0.979 0.980 0.982 0.983 0.984 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.986 0.986 0.986 0.986 0.989 0.989 0.990 0.Figure 7. Comparison between ROC curves obtained with the integrated model and LASSO logistic regression of pCR on copy number data. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068071.gSLAMF7 CTPS IRAK1 C1GA.The same latent structure underneath gene expression and copy number variation data to make inference on a clinical outcome of new patients in the study, in particular ut , the pCR of patients to treatment. The chosen approach is to state a model for ygt and wbt , p(wbt ,ygt Dh) , and to assume a Bernoulli distribution for ut . This leads us to the sought model p(ut Dwbt ,ygt ) and posterior probabilities of ut being 1 give us a measure for the prediction of the outcome of the new patient. The advantages of our model with respect to, for example, a simple logistic regression p(ut Dygt ,wbt ) are mainly the noiseTraining sample Positive pCR No pCR TOT 20 74Test sample 11 11TOT 31 85doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068071.tBayesian Models and Integration Genomic PlatformsFigure 4. Histograms of the posterior probabilities of positive pCR in the integrated model (A) and in the marginal models, respectively on gene expression (B) and CNA data (C). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068071.greduction achieved through the assumption of a latent structure underneath our data, i.e. the latent POE scores for gene expression and the natural variable selection allowed within the model itself; wu yu indicators dg and dg in equation (4) and (5) (with Bernoulli priors with probability 1{p and p very close to 1) allow for a reduction of the number of covariates (genes) and avoid the problem of overestimation.In summary, as a new patient comes into a study and we have measurements of his gene 18204824 expression and copy number variation, we run the model p(wbt ,ygt Dh) and assume for his clinical outcome ut a Bernoulli 23148522 distribution with probability p . Through MCMC methods we obtain updated posterior probabilities of ut being 1 that give us a measure for the prediction of his outcome. In this particular case the outcome refers to the pCR to theFigure 5. Comparison between ROC curves obtained with the marginal and integrated model. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068071.gFigure 6. Comparison between ROC curves obtained with the LASSO logistic regression, respectively using single or joint platforms. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068071.gBayesian Models and Integration Genomic PlatformsTable 3. List of genes which jointly show over expression and copy number amplification in TN group.Symbol E2F3 MYC PLCG2 PEPD C12orf32 C10orf10 FOLH1 GTPBP2 KARS CD14 SHCBP1 CHD1L CCDCEntrezID 1871 4609 5336 5184 83695 11067 2346 54676 3735 929 79801 9557 79080 57823 1503 3654 56913 11329 204 9843 7431 1001 54802 2619 3122 6489 53827 716 8434 56935 79817 3133 11170 3383 3641 23683 6515 5817 22974 10397 4794 10469 9473 23590 9047 29761 10473 140578Cytoband 6p22 8q24.21 16q24.1 19q13.11 12p13.33 10q11.21 11p11.2 6p21 16q23.1 5q22-q32 16q11.2 1q12 11q12.2 1q23.1-q24.1 1p34.1 Xq28 7p14-p13 6p21 1p34 Xq11-q12 10p13 16q22.1 1p34.2 9q21.3-q22 6p21.3 12p12.1-p11.2 19q13.12 12p13 9p13.3 11q21 9p21.2 6p21.3 3p21.1 19p13.3-p13.2 9p24 2p21 12p13.3 19q13.2 20q11.2 8q24.3 6p21.1 19p13.3-p13.2 1p35.3 10p12.1 1q21 21q11.2 6p21.3 21q11.2 9p13.postprob 0.951 0.954 0.954 0.954 0.954 0.954 0.955 0.956 0.957 0.958 0.959 0.959 0.962 0.962 0.962 0.964 0.965 0.965 0.966 0.966 0.967 0.968 0.969 0.971 0.972 0.973 0.975 0.975 0.976 0.976 0.977 0.978 0.979 0.979 0.980 0.982 0.983 0.984 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.986 0.986 0.986 0.986 0.989 0.989 0.990 0.Figure 7. Comparison between ROC curves obtained with the integrated model and LASSO logistic regression of pCR on copy number data. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068071.gSLAMF7 CTPS IRAK1 C1GA.
