bioRxiv Science⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Kernfeld, E. M.

Publications and source records attributed to Kernfeld, E. M..

2 recordsLinked to original sources

A systematic comparison of computational methods for expression forecasting

Expression forecasting methods use machine learning models to predict how a cell will alter its transcriptome upon perturbation. Such methods are enticing because they promise to answer pressing questions in fields ranging from developmental genetics to cell fate engineering and because they are a fast, cheap, and accessible complement to the corresponding experiments. However, the absolute and relative accuracy of these methods is poorly characterized, limiting their informed use, their improvement, and the interpretation of their predictions. To address these issues, we created a benchmarking platform that combines a panel of 11 large-scale perturbation datasets with an expression forecasting software engine that encompasses or interfaces to a wide variety of methods. We used our platform to systematically assess methods, parameters, and sources of auxiliary data, finding that performance strongly depends on the choice of metric, and especially for simple metrics like mean squared error, it is uncommon for expression forecasting methods to out-perform simple baselines. Our platform will serve as a resource to improve methods and to identify contexts in which expression forecasting can succeed.

bioinformatics↗

Model-X knockoffs reveal data-dependent limits on regulatory network identification

Computational biologists have long sought to automatically infer transcriptional regulatory networks (TRNs) from gene expression data, but such approaches notoriously suffer from false positives. Two points of failure could yield false positives: faulty hypothesis testing, or erroneous assumption of a classic criterion called causal sufficiency. We show that a recent statistical development, model-X knockoffs, can effectively control false positives in tests of conditional independence in mouse and E. coli data, which rules out faulty hypothesis tests. Yet, benchmarking against ChIP and other gold standards reveals highly inflated false discovery rates. This identifies the causal sufficiency assumption as a key limiting factor in TRN inference.

bioinformatics↗