Lamrock, F. | Search bioRxiv

bioRxiv2024

Evaluation of Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) tools highlights the value of single sample approaches over pairwise for robust biological discovery.

BackgroundGene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) tools can be used to identify biological insights from transcriptional datasets and have become an integral analysis within gene expression-based cancer studies. Over the years, additional methods of GSEA-based tools have been developed, providing the field with an ever-expanding range of options to choose from. Although several studies have compared the statistical performance of these tools, the downstream biological implications that arise when choosing between the range of pairwise or single sample forms of GSEA methods remain understudied. MethodsIn this study, we compare the statistical and biological interpretation of results obtained when using a variety of pre-ranking methods and options for pairwise GSEA and fast GSEA (fGSEA), alongside single sample GSEA (ssGSEA) and gene set variation analysis (GSVA). These analyses are applied to a well-established cohort of n=215 colon tumour samples, using the clinical feature of cancer recurrence status, non-relapse (NR) and relapse (R), as an initial exemplar, in conjunction with the Molecular Signatures Database "Hallmark" gene sets. ResultsDespite minor fluctuations in statistical performance, pairwise analysis revealed remarkably similar results when deployed using a range of gene pre-ranking methods or across a range of choices of GSEA versus fGSEA, with the same well-established prognostic signatures being consistently returned as significantly associated with relapse status. In contrast, when the same statistically significant signatures, such as Interferon Gamma Response, were assessed using ssGSEA and GSVA approaches, there was a complete absence of biological distinction between these groups (NR and R). ConclusionsData presented here highlights how pairwise methods can overgeneralise biological enrichment within a group, assigning strong statistical significance to gene sets that may be inadvertently interpreted as equating to distinct biology. Importantly, single sample approaches allow users to clearly visualise and interpret statistical significance alongside biological distinction between samples within groups-of-interest; thus, providing a more robust and reliable basis for discovery research.

cancer biology↗

bioRxiv2022

Biological misinterpretation of transcriptional signatures in tumour samples can unknowingly undermine mechanistic understanding and faithful alignment with preclinical data

Precise mechanism-based gene expression signatures (GESs) have been developed in appropriate in vitro and in vivo model systems, to identify important cancer-related signalling processes. However, some GESs originally developed to represent specific disease processes, primarily with an epithelial cell focus, are being applied to heterogeneous tumour samples where the expression of the genes in the signature may no longer be epithelial-specific. Therefore, unknowingly, even small changes in tumour stroma percentage can directly influence GESs, undermining the intended mechanistic signalling. Using colorectal cancer as an exemplar, we deployed numerous orthogonal profiling methodologies, including laser capture microdissection, flow cytometry, bulk and multiregional biopsy clinical samples, single cell RNAseq and finally spatial transcriptomics, to perform a comprehensive assessment of the potential for the most widely-used GESs to be influenced, or confounded, by stromal content in tumour tissue. To complement this work, we generated a freely-available resource, ConfoundR; https://confoundr.qub.ac.uk/, that enables users to test the extent of stromal influence on an unlimited number of the genes/signatures simultaneously across colorectal, breast, pancreatic, ovarian and prostate cancer datasets. Findings presented here demonstrate the clear potential for misinterpretation of the meaning of GESs, due to widespread stromal influences, which in-turn can undermine faithful alignment between clinical samples and preclinical data/models, particularly cell lines and organoids, or tumour models not fully recapitulating the stromal and immune microenvironment. As such, efforts to faithfully align preclinical models of disease using phenotypically-designed GESs must ensure that the signatures themselves remain representative of the same biology when applied to clinical samples.

cancer biology↗