Integrative, multi-omics, analysis of blood samples improves model predictions: applications to cancer.

backgroundCancer genomic studies often include data collected from several omics platforms. Each omics data source contributes to the understanding of the underlying biological process via source specific ("individual") patterns of variability. At the same time, statistical associations and potential interactions among the different data sources can reveal signals from common biological processes that might not be identified by single source analyses. These common patterns of variability are referred to as "shared" or "joint". In this work, we show how the use of joint and individual components can lead to better predictive models, and to a deeper understanding of the biological process at hand. We identify joint and individual contributions of DNA methylation, miRNA and mRNA expression collected from blood samples in a lung cancer case-control study nested within the Norwegian Women and Cancer (NOWAC) cohort study, and we use such components to build prediction models for case-control and metastatic status. To assess the quality of predictions, we compare models based on simultaneous, integrative analysis of multi-source omics data to a standard non-integrative analysis of each single omics dataset, and to penalized regression models. Additionally, we apply the proposed approach to a breast cancer dataset from The Cancer Genome Atlas.

resultsOur results show how an integrative analysis that preserves both components of variation is more appropriate than standard multi-omics analyses that are not based on such a distinction. Both joint and individual components are shown to contribute to a better quality of model predictions, and facilitate the interpretation of the underlying biological processes in lung cancer development.

conclusionsIn the presence of multiple omics data sources, we recommend the use of data integration techniques that preserve the joint and individual components across the omics sources. We show how the inclusion of such components increases the quality of model predictions of clinical outcomes.