 Research
 Open Access
 Published:
Identifying statistically significant combinatorial markers for survival analysis
BMC Medical Genomics volume 11, Article number: 31 (2018)
Abstract
Background
Survival analysis methods have been widely applied in different areas of health and medicine, spanning over varying events of interest and target diseases. They can be utilized to provide relationships between the survival time of individuals and factors of interest, rendering them useful in searching for biomarkers in diseases such as cancer. However, some disease progression can be very unpredictable because the conventional approaches have failed to consider multiplemarker interactions. An exponential increase in the number of candidate markers requires large correction factor in the multipletesting correction and hide the significance.
Methods
We address the issue of testing marker combinations that affect survival by adapting the recently developed Limitless Arity Multipletesting Procedure (LAMP), a pvalue correction technique for statistical tests for combination of markers. LAMP cannot handle survival data statistics, and hence we extended LAMP for the logrank test, making it more appropriate for clinical data, with newly introduced theoretical lower bound of the pvalue.
Results
We applied the proposed method to gene combination detection for cancer and obtained gene interactions with statistically significant logrank pvalues. Gene combinations with orders of up to 32 genes were detected by our algorithm, and effects of some genes in these combinations are also supported by existing literature.
Conclusion
The novel approach for detecting prognostic markers presented here can identify statistically significant markers with no limitations on the order of interaction. Furthermore, it can be applied to different types of genomic data, provided that binarization is possible.
Background
Survival analysis is generally used in studies whose primary interest is the time of occurrence of an event. For instance, one may be interested in the time from first treatment of leukemia patients to time of remission, the time from first heart attack until death, or the time from being cancerfree to time of recurrence. Unlike ordinary regression models, survival analysis methods can incorporate censorship and time information which are usually present in clinical data. They can also be used to estimate survival, or the probability of surviving up to a certain time, and hazard, or the instantaneous rate of occurrence of the event. In addition, they can be utilized to describe the effects of important factors on the survival of the individual, such as age, gender, or treatment. In a similar manner, we can take advantage of these methods to help identify significant biomarkers for survival.
Prognostic biomarkers for diseases like cancer are commonly identified using genomic data such as genomewide expression profiles [1–6]. Recent technologies have led to the increase in the number of biomarkers, and discovery of combinatorial effects of markers has been anticipated, especially in complex diseases where gene interactions may play important roles in regulatory pathways. Various algorithms and techniques have already been developed for marker detection, with strategies ranging from variable selection to Cox score ranking [2] and logrank test. However, owing to the high dimension of data leading to combinatorial explosion, most existing methods can only exhaustively inspect individual candidate markers, failing to consider high order interactions. In addition, multiple hypothesis testing has also complicated the evaluation of statistical significance of detected markers, even in individual inspections, as the large correction factor limits novel discovery from data.
If only single markers or pair markers were considered for statistical assessment, it would be computationally feasible to exhaustively test each candidate. But given the size of standard genomic data and that the size of the combination is arbitrary, the number of tests can be exceedingly large, leading conventional methods for identifying prognostic markers to perform statistical assessment on individual genes or individual SNPs only. This leaves several prospective markers, such as those of high order combinatorial interactions, untested for significant effects. Other approaches try to perform a screening step to narrow down candidates involved in combinations. For example, a subset of the original set of markers may be retained based on their individual statistical significance after performing some initial evaluation. Then, higher order candidate combination markers are generated by considering interactions of the markers retained in this subset and assessed for significant associations. Wang et al. adopted this strategy by restricting the set to the top significantly differentially expressed genes first before generating and selecting candidate combinations using a robust likelihoodbased procedure [5]. In a similar manner, Li et al. also initially screened genes by performing survival analysis and retaining those whose expressions are correlated with patient survival for further analyses [1]. The work of van’t Veer et al. implemented the same technique and used the correlation coefficient values to select significantly associated genes and generated marker combination for accurate prognosis classification using the ranked coefficients [6]. Though feasible, screening strategies disregard the possibility of significant combinations of individual markers with insignificant effects, as illustrated in Fig. 1. In the illustration, suppose X in Fig. 1b is a combination of three genes: gene1, gene2, and gene3 in Fig. 1a. Depending on the correction factor used, gene 1, 2, or 3 may not be identified as significant, therefore X may not be discovered as a candidate marker. All the while, X shows noteworthy effect on the survival of individuals in Fig. 1b.
To overcome the dilemma occurring in statistical assessment of multiple hypotheses, the Limitless Arity Multipletesting Procedure (LAMP) was proposed by Terada et al. for finding significant motif combinations that regulate gene expressions [7]. Using frequent pattern mining [8], the method can enumerate all combinations of transcription factors that are statistically significantly associated with the upregulation of genes. Furthermore, the probability of at least one false discovery occurring is guaranteed to be less than the predefined threshold α, usually 0.05 or 0.01 in value, by excluding infrequent combinations that will never be significant, and hence do not contribute to the familywise error rate (FWER), or the probability of making at least one false discovery [9]. However, the theory of LAMP is only valid for Fisher’s exact test, chisquare test and Mann Whitney U test, and is not directly applicable to survival analysis.
In this research, we propose an extension of LAMP for logrank test to detect prognostic gene combinations. Logrank test is commonly used for differentiating chances of survival between groups. It can also be interpreted as a timestratified CochranMantelHaenszel test (CMH) [10]. The CMH test is used to test for association between a binary predictor, such as treatment, and a binary outcome, like case or control, while taking stratification into consideration. For logrank, we can assume that the binary predictor is given by the categories of the two populations, such as presence of marker, and the binary outcome is the occurrence of the event at the given failure time. With this setting, we can test for association between the failure of samples and the grouping of samples. Most existing methods support their results with pvalues computed using logrank, like in the work of duVerle et al. [11]. To find marker combinations, their method treats combinations as covariates and integrates penalized Cox regression analysis with significant pattern mining to find combinatorial interactions. Their algorithm runs for several iterations to find candidate combinations with significant likelihood ratio test pvalue, and later test them using the logrank pvalue. Statistical significance of their detected combinations is not necessarily guaranteed. On the other hand, our approach directly exploits the logrank pvalue to identify meaningful individual markers and multiplemarker interactions. By modifying LAMP, the procedure becomes more suitable for survival data, which generally involves censored information, while enabling us to identify high order combinations without dealing with issues raised by test multiplicity. Similar to [11], our approach sets no limit on the order of the detected interactions. But unlike them, it does not require training of algorithm that causes possible overfitting of data.
We applied our algorithm to datasets of mRNA expression profiles from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). Cancer is a complex disease whose course and prognosis is highly variable, and some cancer types cause more deaths than others, such as lung, liver, stomach and breast cancers.Therefore, treatment options differ for each individual, and it has been essential to establish prognosis of patients. Aside from early detection before the spread of the disease being crucial, prognostic and predictive markers have also become highly relevant in personalizing medical care and improving the quality of treatment. Our method identified combinatorial interactions with orders of up to 32 genes, and existing studies can confirm the effects of some these genes included in these combinations. Additionally, the method presented here is not restricted to gene expression data, but can also be applied to other types of genomic data such as copy number variations, or singlenucleotide polymorphisms, as long as binarization of values can be performed. This makes our strategy more flexible than other datadefined methods for marker identification.
Methods
Overview
In this study, we will focus on the following problem setting. Suppose we have a survival dataset composed of a set of markers \(\mathcal {G} = \{g_{i}\}_{i=1}^{M}\) and a set of individuals \(\{s_{\ell }\}_{\ell =1}^{N}\) with their corresponding survival times \(\{\tau _{\ell }\}_{\ell =1}^{N}\). Here, we will assume that there is only one level of expression of the marker i for each sample ℓ, i.e. g_{i}(s_{ℓ})∈{0,1}{i=1,2,…,M},{ℓ=1,2,…,N}. For example, g_{i} may represent a single gene, highly expressed genes are denoted by 1 and not highly expressed genes are denoted by 0. When g_{i} is assumed as a SNP, 1 and 0 mean minor homozygous SNP and non minor homozygous SNP, respectively. In addition, let \(\{y(s_{\ell })\}_{\ell =1}^{N}\) be the corresponding labels of each individual such that y(s_{ℓ})=1 if the event of interest occurred for the individual, which we refer to as a failure or failed sample, and y(s_{ℓ})=0 if the information on the sample is censored. Let X be a pattern of m markers \(\{g_{i}\}_{i=1}^{m}\) drawn from the powerset of \(\mathcal {G}\), and \(\{t_{j}\}_{j=1}^{K} \subseteq \{\tau _{\ell }\}_{\ell =1}^{N}\) be the unique failure times, that is, there is at least one sample s_{ℓ} such that τ_{ℓ}=t_{j} and y(s_{ℓ})=1. Then for any failure time t_{j}, we can also subdivide the N individuals into two groups: P_{1}={s_{ℓ}g_{i}(s_{ℓ})=1 ∀g_{i}∈X and τ_{ℓ}≥t_{j}} or the set of samples containing pattern X who survived to at least until t_{j}, and \(P_{0}=\overline {P_{1}}=\{s_{\ell }\ \exists g_{i}\in X, g_{i}(s_{\ell })=0~ \text {and} ~\tau _{\ell }\geq t_{j} \}\) or the set of samples not containing X who also survived to at least until t_{j}. Our goal is to detect combinations X such that survival times of individuals from the two groups P_{1} and P_{0} are statistically significantly different, while taking censored information into account. Thus, we can say that X is associated to survival, making it a promising candidate marker.
A statistical test for survival analysis, such as the logrank test, is useful to evaluate statistical significance of a combination like X. But to use it to exhaustively investigate the effects of combination markers, statistical assessment must be performed for every possible combination, i.e., 2^{M}−1 statistical tests are performed. Such approach does not only cause computational complexity problems, but also yields a serious number of false discoveries. To overcome these problems, we present an algorithm for finding combinatorial interactions significantly associated with the survival of individuals while controlling FWER and correcting for multiple hypotheses. To achieve this goal, the proposed method integrated the statistical evaluation capability of the logrank test with the multiple testing correction power of LAMP.
The Logrank Test
The logrank test is used to determine statistical difference in the timetoevent for any given time between the two populations. For example, one might be interested in the time before death between treatment and placebo for a complex disease in a clinical trial. The test assumes that occurrence of event is not dependent on censoring, and that event probabilities are unaffected by the start times of the individuals in the study [12].
Given a combination of markers \(X \subseteq \mathcal {G}\), we construct sequential contingency tables to calculate the pvalue with the logrank test. Table 1 shows a contingency table for time t_{j}, where t_{1}<⋯<t_{j}<⋯<t_{K} are the ordered failure times. Let Y_{j} and n_{j} be the numbers of individuals satisfying τ_{ℓ}≥t_{j} and failed individuals satisfying τ_{ℓ}=t_{j}, respectively. And let λ_{j} be the number of individuals in P_{1} at t_{j} and n_{1j} be the number of individuals in P_{1} such that τ_{ℓ}=t_{j} and y=1.
For the jth failure time, the observed number of failures in P_{1} is given by n_{1j} and the expected number of failures equal to
The logrank statistic Z measures the ratio between the summed deviation between the observed failures and the expected failures for each failure time, normalized by the square root of the summed variance for each failure time:
where the variance at t_{j} is given by
The test statistic Z^{2} has a chisquare distribution with 1 degree of freedom, which can be used for statistical assessment of survival curves of the two groups P_{1} and P_{0} via chisquare test. That being the case, we can explicitly use the test to find statistically significant markers that influence the survival of the individuals.
LAMP
Multiple hypothesis testing is one of the many challenges in finding significantly associated markers in disease survival and disease incidence. Several methods have been proposed to address this problem, with Bonferroni correction as one of the most highly utilized approaches. This is easily performed by dividing the predetermined significance level α (generally 0.05 or 0.01) by the total number of hypotheses to be tested, k, to obtain the adjusted pvalue threshold δ. However, this method is known to be conservative. Especially when considering higher order interactions, the number of tests easily increases exponentially, causing the adjusted threshold to be very small and discouraging new findings from the data.
As a workaround on the drawback of Bonferroni correction, one strategy is to determine which tests are “testable” and “untestable” [9]. This is the technique used by Terada et al. for controlling the FWER in statistical tests such as Fisher’s exact test and chisquared test [7]. For a test with contingency table marginals given by n_{1},λ,N−n_{1} and N−λ, where n_{1} is the total number of samples with label 1, and λ is the the total number of occurrences of a pattern of markers X, the minimum raw pvalue is obtained when the table is most biased and so cannot be less than
Therefore, if for some λ,f(λ) is greater than the adjusted pvalue δ, then the corresponding pattern of markers can never be significant and is therefore untestable.
To apply the above method to finding high order combinations of transcription factors regulating gene expression, Terada et al. used the lineartime closed itemset miner (LCM) [8]. LCM can enumerate patterns whose frequency of appearance in the data is at least equal to λ. When the minimum pvalue bound f(λ) is used with LCM, significant patterns can be identified by using the antimonotonic property of f. The LAMP algorithm [7, 13] is outlined in Algorithm 1. First, λ is set to the minimum between the maximum frequency over all patterns X in the data and the total number of positive labels n_{1} in the data. Then, the LCM algorithm is called to list all patterns with frequencies no less than λ, with k equal to the order of this set. If f(λ−1)≤α/k using Eq. 1, then λ is decremented by 1, and LCM is called again to find all corresponding patterns and compute for the new k. The last two steps are repeated until f(λ−1)<α/k or until λ=2. The algorithm outputs the optimal λ^{∗}, an exhaustive list of the testable patterns, and the total number of testable patterns corresponding to λ^{∗}.
LAMP for survival analysis
LAMP can be used to find associations using statistical tests, but it cannot be directly applied to survival data. Therefore, it is necessary to extend the algorithm to incorporate censorship and time information. An attractive point of the approach is that it is easily applicable to methods provided we can find a nonzero bounding function for the minimum pvalue that is monotonically decreasing [7]. To this end, we define such function for the logrank test.
Proposition 1.
Let λ, n_{1j}, n_{j}, and Y_{j} be contingency table values and marginals previously defined. The minimum pvalue of the logrank test is bounded below by the monotonically decreasing function
Proof
Let \(\chi ^{2}_{\text {LR}}\) be the the logrank chisquare statistic and p_{j} be the corresponding pvalue for the 2×2 contingency table at the jth failure time t_{j}, j=1,2,…,K. We consider Fisher’s method and the unified statistic given by
This statistic is sensitive to small values of p_{j} and tends to be large if at least one null hypothesis H_{j} is not true. Thus, for values at the right tail of the distribution, given that the degree of freedom 2K of \(\chi _{\mathrm {u}}^{2}\) is greater than the degree of freedom of \(\chi _{\text {LR}}^{2}\) (df =1) but \(\chi _{\mathrm {u}}^{2}\) is large enough to also reject the null hypothesis as \(\chi _{\text {LR}}^{2}\), then \(\chi _{\text {LR}}^{2}<\chi _{\mathrm {u}}^{2}\). In a similar manner, this also holds when all null hypotheses are true. If \(\chi _{\text {LR}}^{2}\) is small and null hypothesis is true, then p_{j}’s also tend to be large. However, the logrank pvalue p_{LR} is only large for extreme values of \(\chi _{\text {LR}}^{2}\). Therefore to achieve comparable probability as logrank at a higher degree of freedom, the combined statistic \(\chi _{\mathrm {u}}^{2}\) is still greater than \(\chi _{\text {LR}}^{2}\). Moreover, for nontrivial values of K, \(\chi _{\text {LR}}^{2}\ll \chi _{\mathrm {u}}^{2}\), so the corresponding pvalues \(p_{\text {LR}}=p\left (\chi _{\text {LR}}^{2}(1)\right)>p\left (\chi _{\mathrm {u}}^{2}(2)\right)\), i.e., if \(p\left (\chi _{\text {LR}}^{2}(1)\right)>p\left (\chi _{\mathrm {u}}^{2}(1)\right)\), the \(\chi _{\mathrm {u}}^{2}\) is sufficiently large such that inequality still holds when its df is increased by 1. We choose df =2 to take advantage of the equivalent distribution of χ^{2}(2), and rewrite
Thus, we can bound the logrank pvalue by the product of respective pvalues of each table.
Note that as the failure time t_{j} becomes longer, entries of the jth contingency table and sample size becomes smaller. Therefore, it is preferable to use Fisher’s exact test to compute for the corresponding pvalue of the table instead of chisquare test. Under the null hypothesis, the probability of generating a contingency table such as in Table 1 at each failure time is equal to the probability for a single 2×2 table in Fisher’s exact test [14]. The corresponding pvalue of the table at t_{j} is given by
Moreover, this achieves its minimum when the table is most biased [7]. Therefore, \(f_{j}(\lambda _{j})=\binom {n_{j}}{\lambda _{j}}\Big /\binom {Y_{j}}{\lambda _{j}}\) if λ_{j}≤n_{j} and \(f_{j}(\lambda _{j})=1\Big /\binom {Y_{j}}{n_{1j}}\) if λ_{j}>n_{j}. Fixing λ_{j}=λ for all j, we get the bounding function defined in Eq. 2.
To show that f is monotonically decreasing, observe that when λ≤n_{j}:
And since n_{j}≤Y_{j}, then (n_{j}−λ)/(Y_{j}−λ)≤1. On the other hand, when λ>n_{j}, f_{j}(λ) is independent of λ. Therefore, f_{j}(λ) decreases with respect to λ, and the conclusion follows. □
Algorithm
To find statistically significant interactions using logrank test, we implemented the following algorithm tailored from the original LAMP algorithm [13]. Briefly, the differences of the two algorithms are the initialization of λ and the computation of the minimum pvalue bound.
Similar to LAMP, λ is initially set to the maximum frequency over all patterns X in the data. If this value is larger than the minimum number of samples at risk Y_{j} over all failure times, λ is set to this value in line 2. Lines 4–5 call the LCM algorithm while decreasing the value of λ by 1 for each iteration to find all patterns X whose number of occurrences is at least λ, until the value f(λ−1)≤α/k, k equal to the number of such patterns X. The value of f is computed using the bound defined in Eq. 2. The pvalue for the corresponding λ is computed in each failure time, and the product across all failure times is obtained. When the condition in line 5 is not met, or if the current λ is already equal to 2, then algorithm finally outputs the optimal value of λ, an exhaustive list of all testable patterns corresponding to this value, and the total number of these patterns, k.
Data
To test our approach, the algorithm was applied to two publicly available datasets with clinical data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) Database: samples from breast invasive carcinoma (TCGABRCA) [15] data and samples from ovarian serous cystadenocarcinoma (TCGAOV) [16] data. The TCGABRCA data contains 14688 mRNA gene expression profiles from 526 samples, while the TCGAOV data has from 17578 mRNA gene expression profiles from 485 samples. The event of interest is death of the individual, with overall survival time (in months, from time of enrollment in study until death) given. TCGABRCA contains 419 distinct survival times, with 65 distinct failure times, while TCGAOV has 433 unique survival times and 252 unique failure times. The zscores of mediancentered per gene data were provided, and we used this to binarize the expression values such that zscores greater than 2 are classified as highly expressed. The average number of highly expressed samples per gene was around 21 samples for both data. To finish the computations within three days, we opted to divide the data into sets with 250 genes per set (directly as given in order of the data; last set may have < 250 genes) and implemented the algorithm per set. This yielded 59 sets for the TCGABRCA data and 79 sets for the TCGAOV data. We aggregated the results for all experiments and used the total correction factor for all analyses as the significance threshold correction factor. We filtered the significant gene interactions detected by our algorithm by selecting those whose raw pvalue multiplied by the total correction factor is still less than the threshold α, set here to 0.05. We performed all our experiments in a machine with two Intel Xeon E52650 v3 (2.30GHz) processors with 128GB memory.
Results and discussion
Analysis of TCGA breast invasive carcinoma data
We obtained a total of 9634 statistically significant combinations from TCGABRCA, and the average correction factor per analysis is 9428. We used the total correction factor k=556284 to retain statistically significant combinations across all analyses, reducing the number of significant interactions to 5836 with the largest size of gene combinations is 32. Due to some unexpected bias that may be presented when detected significant markers only affect one or very few samples in the whole the data, we sorted the combinations in decreasing number of occurrences of the marker combination. Table 2 gives the first 5 of the sorted interactions found to be statistically significantly associated to breast cancer prognosis by our method.
The combinations yielded by our analysis involve genes that have been previously implicated in disease incidence or associated with disease prognosis. These include the PIK3CA gene (part of a combination of 28 genes, raw p=1.9545e−09, adjusted p=0.00109), which is one of the three genes whose occurrence of somatic mutations are greater than 10% among all breast cancers [15], and BRCA2 (first combination has size 22, raw p=1.9545e−09, adj. p=0.00109; second combination has size 8, raw p=3.3648e−08, adj. p=0.01871). From the table, the frequently appearing TIMM17A gene is a known breast cancer marker [17], and have been previously shown to affect the aggressiveness of tumor cells in breast cancer [18, 19]. High expressions of this gene have been linked to the more progressive type of the disease, resulting to unfavorable survival outcomes for affected patients.
The other genes, while not directly associated to breast cancer survival, have also been studied for associations with breast cancer, other cancer types, or cancer risk. For instance, C1orf55 (SDE2) gene in the first and fourth combination in Table 2 has been recently shown to help cells in replication stress relief [20], and replication stress is known to correlate with the formation of tumors or tumorigenesis [21]. Another example is the OTUD6B gene in the second and fourth combinations, which is a gene belonging to a subfamily of ovarian tumor domain, and a potential biomarker for nonsmall cell lung cancer [22]. Additionally, gene expression of ZNF703 in combination three has been shown to activate gene expression that lead to increase in cancer stem cells, which promote tumorigenesis, in breast cancer [23]. From the aggregated results in the analyses, we obtained a total of 5930 unique genes included in the combinations.
To illustrate the effects of interactions vs single gene on patient survival, KaplanMeier plots of the first 3 gene combinations from Table 2 are given in Fig. 2. It is worth noting that the individual genes will never be statistically significant for α=0.05 and k=556284 (adjusted pvalue is large so we set p=1.0 in the figures), but their combinations yield statistically significant results, e.g. C1orf55 and TIMM17A in Fig. 2a. Notable difference between the divergence patterns of the survival curves of combinations vs individual genes can be observed. Moreover, the impact of these combinations of highly expressed genes can potentially severely aggravate patient survival, with median survival time from as early as around 25 months. This is also supported by evidence of the cumulative hazard for the combination, such as that for C1orf55,TIMM17A rapidly increasing before reaching t=50 months, compared to the individual gene cumulative hazards, as shown in Fig. 3.
Analysis of TCGA ovarian serous cystadenocarcinoma data
For the TCGAOV data, we obtained a total of 5193 candidate combinations from the 79 sets, with average correction factor of 12962 per set and a total correction factor of k=920351. After correction on the raw pvalues, 2849 combinations with size of at most 28, and where 1893 combinations are present in more than one sample, are retained. Top interactions with the most number of occurrences in the data samples are enumerated in Table 3.
Similar to the TCGABRCA results, genes in the interactions potentially affecting the ovarian cancer survival include known oncogenes and novel candidates. As an example, high expressions of GGCX, the top gene in Table 3, has been observed in bladder cancer [24] and has been linked to a susceptibility locus in prostate cancer [25], encouraging subsequent studies of this gene and its role in cancer. Also, MTF1 and NBN genes in combination two have evidence of high gene expressions in lung, breast, and cervical cancer tumors [26], and mutations associated with cancer occurrence, such as breast, prostate and stomach cancers [27, 28], respectively. Further, studies suggest that the ANTXR2 (CMG2) gene plays a significant role in angiogenesis and promotes proliferation of endothelial cells and form and structure development during angiogenesis in cancers such as breast cancer [29, 30]. All of these imply potential effects of detected interactions in cancer risk and survival. KaplanMeier plots in Fig. 4 for the first three interactions in Table 3 also provide validation on the effects of these genes on patient prognosis, with effects of MTF1 and NBN genes significantly stronger when considering interactions, compared to individual effects (Fig. 4c). The rapid decrease in the survival curves corresponding to high expression of the markers are also noticeable, with median survival time also attained as early as two years. As expected, there is severe rapid increase in the cumulative force of mortality for such markers, which can be seen for the GGCX gene in Fig. 5.
Validation of results
As further support to the resulting combinations detected by the proposed algorithm, we used separate breast and ovarian cancer data sets to check if these combinations are also statistically significant survival markers for these data. Gene expression and clinical data for breast and ovarian cancers were obtained from the National Center for Biotechnology Information Gene Expression Omnibus with accession numbers GSE2034 [31], GSE25066 [32] and GSE3494 [33] for breast cancer, and GSE13876 [34] and GSE49997 [35] for ovarian cancer. Raw values given in GSE2034 and GSE13876 were log2transformed and then mediancentered. On the other hand, data values given in the other data sets were already logtransformed and normalized, respectively (see [32, 33, 35]). Modified zscores were computed using the normalized values, and two types of binarization were applied thereafter. The first one is similar to our experiment settings focusing on high expressions of the genes of interest included in the combinations: zscores greater than 2 were set to 1, otherwise, set to 0. The second one considers the case when the genes of interest have low expressions, for which we set entries with zscores less than − 0.5 to 1, otherwise, set to 0. Probes were mapped to genes using their Gene Entrez IDs, with some genes mapped to multiple probes in the data. Therefore, we checked all possible probe combinations of each respective gene combination, provided all genes in the combination have a corresponding probe in the data. Otherwise, such combinations cannot be assessed. Survival with various events of interest were analyzed using the validation data, namely: relapse with time to relapse or last followup (GSE2034), distant recurrencefree survival with time from operation to the first distant recurrence (GSE25066), diseasespecific survival with DSS time (GSE3494), overall survival with time from primary surgery (GSE13876), and progression free survival (PFS) with survival time that the disease does not get worse during or postsurgery. The summary of proportions of statistically significant combinations found in the validation data sets, i.e., their raw pvalue is less than 0.05, is given in Table 4. For combinations with multiple corresponding probe sets, the combination is statistically significant if at least one of the matching probe sets is statistically significant.
Extensions and limitations of the model
An advantage of the algorithm presented here over other methods is its flexibility on the type of data used for analysis. It can easily deal with other genomic data such as SNPs or copy number variations provided values can be binarized. Moreover, scope of the application can be expanded to any type of disease (i.e., noncancer diseases) and event of interest (e.g. cancer recurrence, remission, effectivity of treatment). The method can also be extended to continuous values, as techniques for significant pattern mining dealing with realvalued data have also been proposed [36].
While the proposed method can detect high order interactions without any theoretical limitations to the order of interaction, it is not without cost. One caveat of the algorithm is the calling of LCM multiple times, making it very timeconsuming, especially for largescale data, hence the data division performed in the analyses. A faster version for LAMP has been proposed [13], invoking the LCM algorithm only once with depthfirst search, making it 10 to 100 times faster than the original. To utilize this approach, certain adjustments on the current algorithm must be applied.
Another shortcoming of the method is the relaxed minimum pvalue bound, which returns very small pvalues. This also causes the algorithm to run longer, due to the longer time it takes to terminate pruning in the LCM algorithm. The value of λ decreases unnecessarily, therefore increasing the number of testable items. While the correction factor is still significantly smaller than what would have been if Bonferroni correction is used, a tighter bound is still preferred.
Conclusion
In this study, we presented a novel approach to finding potentially relevant high order gene markers that affect disease prognosis. By utilizing existing significant pattern mining techniques, our method can find multiple order combinations associated with the survival probabilities of affected and unaffected individuals while controlling the FWER and not being computationally expensive. Applying our algorithm to existing cancer survival study data yielded interactions involving genes already associated with cancer prognosis from existing literatures, as well us genes whose roles in cancer are still unknown.
Abbreviations
 FWER:

Familywise error rate
 KM:

KaplanMeier
 LAMP:

Limitlessarity multipletesting procedure
 LCM:

Lineartime closed itemset miner
 TCGA:

The cancer genome atlas
References
 1
Li J, Lenferink AE, Deng Y, Collins C, Cui Q, Purisima EO, et al. Identification of highquality cancer prognostic markers and metastasis network modules. Nat Commun. 2010; 1:34.
 2
MartinezLedesma E, Verhaak RG, Trevino V. Identification of a multicancer gene expression biomarker for cancer clinical outcomes using a networkbased algorithm. Sci Rep. 2015; 5:11966.
 3
Mehta S, Shelling A, Muthukaruppan A, Lasham A, Blenkiron C, Laking G, Print C. Predictive and prognostic molecular markers for cancer medicine. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2010; 2(2):125–48.
 4
Suzuki K, Kachala SS, Kadota K, Shen R, Mo Q, Beer DG, et al. Prognostic immune markers in nonsmall cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2011; 17(16):5247–256.
 5
Wang Z, Chen G, Wang Q, Lu W, Xu M. Identification and validation of a prognostic 9genes expression signature for gastric cancer. Oncotarget. 2017; 8:73826–36.
 6
van’t Veer LJ, Dai H, van de Vijver MJ, He YD, Hart AA, Mao M, et al. Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature. 2002; 415(6871):530–6.
 7
Terada A, OkadaHatakeyama M, Tsuda K, Sese J. Statistical significance of combinatorial regulations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013; 110(32):12996–3001.
 8
Uno T, Asai T, Uchida Y, Arimura H. (LCM): An efficient algorithm for enumerating frequent closed item sets In: Goethals B, MJ Z, editors. Proceedings of the ICDM 2003 Workshop on Frequent Itemset Mining Implementation: 2003.
 9
Tarone R. A modified bonferroni method for discrete data. Biometrics. 1990; 46:515–22.
 10
Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959; 22(4):719–48.
 11
duVerle DA, Takeuchi I, MurakamiTonami Y, Kadomatsu K, Tsuda K. Discovering combinatorial interactions in survival data. Bioinformatics. 2013; 29(23):3053–9.
 12
Bland JM, Altman DG. The logrank test. BMJ. 2004; 328(7447):1073.
 13
Minato S, Uno T, Tsuda K, Terada A, Sese J. In: Calders T, Esposito F, Hüllermeier E, Meo R, (eds).A Fast Method of Statistical Assessment for Combinatorial Hypotheses Based on Frequent Itemset Enumeration. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2014, pp. 422–36.
 14
Kuritz SJ, Landis JR, Koch GG. A general overview of MantelHaenszel methods: applications and recent developments. Annu Rev Public Health. 1988; 9:123–60.
 15
Network TCGA. Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2012; 490(7418):61–70.
 16
Network TCGAR. Integrated genomic analyses of ovarian carcinoma. Nature. 2011; 474(7353):609–15.
 17
Xu X, Qiao M, Zhang Y, Jiang Y, Wei P, Yao J, et al. Quantitative proteomics study of breast cancer cell lines isolated from a single patient: discovery of TIMM17A as a marker for breast cancer. Proteomics. 2010; 10(7):1374–90.
 18
Salhab M, Patani N, Jiang W, Mokbel K. High TIMM17A expression is associated with adverse pathological and clinical outcomes in human breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2012; 19(2):153–60.
 19
Yang X, Si Y, Tao T, Martin TA, Cheng S, Yu H, et al. The Impact of TIMM17A on Aggressiveness of Human Breast Cancer Cells. Anticancer Res. 2016; 36(3):1237–41.
 20
Jo U, Cai W, Wang J, Kwon Y, D’Andrea AD, Kim H. PCNADependent Cleavage and Degradation of SDE2 Regulates Response to Replication Stress. PLoS Genet. 2016; 12(12):1006465.
 21
Gaillard H, GarciaMuse T, Aguilera A. Replication stress and cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2015; 15(5):276–89.
 22
Sobol A, Askonas C, Alani S, Weber MJ, Ananthanarayanan V, Osipo C, Bocchetta M. Deubiquitinase OTUD6B Isoforms Are Important Regulators of Growth and Proliferation. Mol Cancer Res. 2017; 15(2):117–27.
 23
Sircoulomb F, Nicolas N, Ferrari A, Finetti P, Bekhouche I, Rousselet E, et al. ZNF703 gene amplification at 8p12 specifies luminal B breast cancer. EMBO Mol Med. 2011; 3(3):153–66.
 24
Cheng S, Andrew AS, Andrews PC, Moore JH. Complex systems analysis of bladder cancer susceptibility reveals a role for decarboxylase activity in two genomewide association studies. BioData Min. 2016; 9:40.
 25
KoteJarai Z, Olama AA, Giles GG, Severi G, Schleutker J, Weischer M, et al. Seven prostate cancer susceptibility loci identified by a multistage genomewide association study. Nat Genet. 2011; 43(8):785–91.
 26
Shi Y, Amin K, Sato BG, Samuelsson SJ, Sambucetti L, Haroon ZA, et al. The metalresponsive transcription factor1 protein is elevated in human tumors. Cancer Biol Ther. 2010; 9(6):469–76.
 27
Seemanova E, Jarolim P, Seeman P, Varon R, Digweed M, Swift M, Sperling K. Cancer risk of heterozygotes with the NBN founder mutation. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007; 99(24):1875–80.
 28
Uzunoglu H, Korak T, Ergul E, Uren N, Sazci A, Utkan NZ, et al. Association of the nibrin gene (NBN) variants with breast cancer. Biomed Rep. 2016; 4(3):369–73.
 29
Reeves CV, Dufraine J, Young JA, Kitajewski J. Anthrax toxin receptor 2 is expressed in murine and tumor vasculature and functions in endothelial proliferation and morphogenesis. Oncogene. 2010; 29(6):789–801.
 30
Ye L, Sun PH, Sanders AJ, Martin TA, Lane J, Mason MD, Jiang WG. Therapeutic potential of capillary morphogenesis gene 2 extracellular vWA domain in tumourrelated angiogenesis. Int J Oncol. 2014; 45(4):1565–73.
 31
Wang Y, Klijn JG, Zhang Y, Sieuwerts AM, Look MP, Yang F, Talantov D, Timmermans M, Meijervan Gelder ME, Yu J, Jatkoe T, Berns EM, Atkins D, Foekens JA. Geneexpression profiles to predict distant metastasis of lymphnodenegative primary breast cancer. Lancet. 2005; 365(9460):671–9.
 32
Itoh M, Iwamoto T, Matsuoka J, Nogami T, Motoki T, Shien T, Taira N, Niikura N, Hayashi N, Ohtani S, Higaki K, Fujiwara T, Doihara H, Symmans WF, Pusztai L. Estrogen receptor (ER) mRNA expression and molecular subtype distribution in ERnegative/progesterone receptorpositive breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014; 143(2):403–9.
 33
Miller LD, Smeds J, George J, Vega VB, Vergara L, Ploner A, Pawitan Y, Hall P, Klaar S, Liu ET, Bergh J. An expression signature for p53 status in human breast cancer predicts mutation status, transcriptional effects, and patient survival. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005; 102(38):13550–5.
 34
Crijns AP, Fehrmann RS, de Jong S, Gerbens F, Meersma GJ, Klip HG, Hollema H, Hofstra RM, te Meerman GJ, de Vries EG, van der Zee AG. Survivalrelated profile, pathways, and transcription factors in ovarian cancer. PLoS Med. 2009; 6(2):24.
 35
Pils D, Hager G, Tong D, Aust S, Heinze G, Kohl M, Schuster E, Wolf A, Sehouli J, Braicu I, Vergote I, Cadron I, Mahner S, Hofstetter G, Speiser P, Zeillinger R. Validating the impact of a molecular subtype in ovarian cancer on outcomes: a study of the OVCAD Consortium. Cancer Sci. 2012; 103(7):1334–41.
 36
Sugiyama M, Borgwardt KM. Finding Significant Combinations of Continuous Features. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08694. 2017. https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.08694.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Funding
This work was supported by KAKENHI Grant Number 15H01717 and 16H06469, JST CREST Grant Number JPMJCR1502, JPMJCR16O3 and JPMJCR1689 to JS, and JST PRESTO to AT. The publication cost of this article was funded by the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology.
Availability of data and materials
Source codes of the proposed algorithm and usage details are available at: https://rtrelator.github.io/SurvivalLAMP/.
About this supplement
This article has been published as part of BMC Medical Genomics Volume 11 Supplement 2, 2018: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Genome Informatics: medical genomics. The full contents of the supplement are available online at https://bmcmedgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/supplements/volume11supplement2.
Author information
Affiliations
Contributions
RTR, AT and JS designed the method and wrote the manuscript. RTR analyzed the data and validated the results. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Correspondence to Jun Sese.
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
About this article
Cite this article
Relator, R.T., Terada, A. & Sese, J. Identifying statistically significant combinatorial markers for survival analysis. BMC Med Genomics 11, 31 (2018) doi:10.1186/s129200180346x
Published
DOI
Keywords
 Survival analysis
 Gene marker
 Multiple testing
 Logrank test
 Prognosis