PREPRINT VERSION November 19, 2011. In review.

Cancer gene prioritization by integrative analysis of mRNA expression and DNA copy
number data: a comparative review
Leo Lahti (1,2), Martin Schäfer (3), Hans-Ulrich Klein (4), Silvio Bicciato (5) and Martin Dugas (4)
(1) Aalto University, Department of Information and Computer Science, Adaptive Informatics Research Centre and
Helsinki Institute for Information Technology HIIT, P.O. Box 15400, FI-00076 Aalto, Finland, (2) University of
Helsinki, Department of Veterinary Bioscience, P.O. Box 66, FI-00014, Finland. (3) Department of Statistics, TU
Dortmund University, Vogelpothsweg 87, 44221 Dortmund, Germany (4) Institute of Medical Informatics,
University of Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1 - A11, D-48149 Münster, Germany (5) Center for Genome
Research, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, via G. Campi, 287 - 41100 Modena, Italy
Abstract
A variety of genome-wide profiling techniques are available to probe complementary aspects of genome structure
and function. Integrative analysis of heterogeneous data sources can reveal higher-level interactions that cannot
be detected based on individual observations. A standard integration task in cancer studies is to identify altered
genomic regions that induce changes in the expression of the associated genes based on joint analysis of
genome-wide gene expression and copy number profiling measurements. In this review, we provide a comparison
among various modeling procedures for integrating genome-wide profiling data of gene copy number and
transcriptional alterations and highlight common approaches to genomic data integration. A transparent
benchmarking procedure is introduced to quantitatively compare the cancer gene prioritization performance of the
alternative methods. The benchmarking algorithms and data sets are available at
http://intcomp.r-forge.r-project.org
Keywords: algorithms, cancer, data integration, DNA copy number, gene expression, microarrays

INTRODUCTION
Genome-wide profiling technologies, in particular microarrays and next generation sequencing, are used to
characterize disease-associated changes at various levels of genome function. Identification of the key players genes, chromosomal regions, or biological processes - is a fundamental step towards mechanistic characterization
of the disease and revealing molecular targets for potential therapeutic intervention. Genomic, transcriptomic,
epigenomic, and proteomic measurements characterize different aspects of genome regulation and function that are
particularly relevant for cancer research [1-2]. Integrative analysis has been used to prioritize disease genes or
chromosomal regions for experimental testing, to discover disease subtypes [3-4], or to predict patient survival or
other clinical variables [5]. Co-occurring genomic observations are increasingly available in private and public
repositories, such as the Cancer Genome Atlas database [6] and the Leukemia Gene Atlas [7], which promotes
wide access to data resources. However, the lack of algorithmic implementations still represents a bottleneck
hampering integrative approaches.
The integration of gene expression (GE) and copy number (CN) data to identify DNA copy number alterations that
induce changes in the expression levels of the associated genes is a common task in cancer studies [8], and the
detection of chromosomal regions with exceptionally high statistical association between CN and GE can pinpoint
disease genes and potential cancer mechanisms [9-10]. First high-throughput analyses were reported about a decade
ago [11-13], evidencing a clear cis-dosage effect of CN alterations on GE levels [14-16]. Although the downstream
effect of CN alteration on gene expression is still a focus of ongoing research [17-18], a systematic quantitative
comparison of alternative approaches for integrating GE/CN data sets has been missing, as clearly highlighted by
the recent review by Huang et al [8]. Hence, we designed a transparent and quantitative benchmarking procedure to
compare publicly available methods for cancer gene prioritization from the integrative analysis of CN/GE profiling
data. This benchmark approach was applied to assess and compare the performance of 12 algorithms on two
simulated data sets and three real case studies. In the following sections, we overview available methodologies for
cancer gene prioritization based on GE/CN data integration, introduce the analysis pipeline, and discuss
benchmarking results.

PREPRINT VERSION November 19, 2011. In review.
Quantifying associations between gene expression and copy number
Two-step approaches Several approaches separately assess the alterations in each data set and compare results
from CN and GE analyses to detect simultaneous changes, mostly modeling changes in GE based on the CN
signals [16,19]. This corresponds to the biological intuition concerning the cis-regulatory effect of CN alterations.
In the first step samples are grouped based on hard CN calls, call probabilities [20] or quantiles (DR-SAM [21]). In
the second step, differential gene expression is quantified between such groups using e.g., standard approaches for
GE data analysis as t-test [13], nonparametric alternatives [22] or permutation tests [23-24]. Some methods focus
on regions rather than probes/genes [19, 24]. Comparison of gene expression levels between the sample groups
with distinct copy number status on a particular chromosomal region is aimed to reveal copy number-induced
transcriptional responses, typically within the affected region.
Regression approaches Another class of tools uses regression models with CN as the predictor and GE as the
response variable, again following biological intuition concerning the cis-regulatory effect of CN alterations. Both
linear [12] and non-linear regression models [25] have been proposed. Regression models have been designed both
based on one-to-one correspondence between CN and GE probes [26] and multiple/multivariate linear regression
[14, 26-28].
Correlation-based approaches The DR-Correlate [21] and a modified version of Ortiz-Estevez algorithm [16] use
correlation-based analysis to scan over the genome to detect loci with exceptionally high associations between
CN/GE. Schäfer et al. [29] substitute the sample means by the reference medians, and Lipson et al. [30] use
quantile-based analysis to obtain improved correlation coefficients. Canonical correlation analysis (CCA) identifies
linear combinations of CN and GE probes that are maximally correlated. Various modifications for dimensionality
reduction and model regularization have been proposed based on principal component analysis [31] and penalized
approaches based, e.g., on LASSO or elastic net to obtain sparse versions of CCA [5, 32-33], or based on variants
that focus on specific types of dependency [34]. Regularization can reduce overfitting, and sparsity can simplify
interpretation of the results, but determining appropriate regularization parameters may represent a challenging
issue.
Latent variable models Latent variable approaches model directly the data-generating processes and noise. The
pint/simcca [34] decomposes GE and CN data sets into shared and independent Gaussian components based on
regularized probabilistic CCA. The algorithm by [4] is a related model suited for sample classification and subtype
discovery. Latent matrix decomposition models and iterative, dependency-seeking projections have also been
suggested based on generalized singular-value decomposition [3] and independent component analysis [35].

Benchmarking the algorithms
Manual literature search in PubMed and Google Scholar using combinations of the keywords ‘gene expression’,
‘copy number’, ‘integration’, and curation of the Bioconductor repository (http://www.bioconductor.org) were
performed to identify available implementations, yielding 12 algorithms that were applicable for cancer gene
prioritization based on integrative analysis of GE/CN data (Table 1). The source code for Ortiz-Estevez [16] was
obtained from the authors. An automated benchmarking pipeline (‘intcomp’) was created to compare method
performance on two simulated data sets and three real case studies. Calculations were carried out in R (2.13.2 [36]
and
intcomp
v.
0.3.27).
The
comparison
pipeline
is
available
through
R-Forge
(http://intcomp.r-forge.r-project.org/) and the algorithm versions are detailed in the package vignette.
Each method was used to prioritize candidate cancer genes, followed by comparison to a golden standard list of
known cancer genes, and ranking of the methods based on (i) true positive rate among the top findings, (ii) receiver
operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of the overall prioritized gene list, and (iii) running times. Since only a
subset of genes are likely to be cancer-associated, the standard Area Under Curve (AUC) analysis, which considers
the overall prioritized gene list, was complemented by investigating the true positive rate among the top findings.
This is more appropriate in particular for methods such as CNAmet, Ortiz-Estevez, or PREDA/SODEGIR, which
have originally been designed to detect altered chromosomal regions rather than to prioritize individual genes.
Default parameters for each method were used where possible. The following exceptions were made to apply the
algorithms to cancer gene prioritization. In DR-Correlate [21], empirical p-values from 1000 random gene
permutations were used to rank the genes. The DR-Correlate t-test option was not applicable on the Ferrari
simulations due to the low number of replicate samples. CNAmet [24, 37] requires called CN values and provides
separate lists for amplifications and deletions; thus, the two lists were pooled and ranked based on the p-values.
Moreover, to enable an unbiased AUC comparison of CNAmet with all other methods (that prioritize all genes),
random ranks were assigned to genes labeled by CNAmet with no p-value (non-significant genes). With

PREPRINT VERSION November 19, 2011. In review.
intCNGEan [20], the weighted Mann-Whitney test with univariate analysis was used with an effective p-value
threshold of 0.1. In pint/simcca [34], segmented CN data was used only when the resolution of the CN platform
was higher than the resolution of the GE microarray. In PREDA/SODEGIR we used ‘spline’ for smoothing, 1000
random gene orderings of the output regions, and the median AUC as an unbiased output for gene prioritization.
For all methods, each CN probe/segment has been matched to the closest/corresponding GE probe within the same
chromosomal arm [34, 38], although the preprocessing of CN data depends partially on the platform resolution [8].
On the latest high-density SNP arrays, for instance, segmentation strategies are essential for estimating the CN for
individual genes [8]. Various approaches consider to investigate only certain genomic regions at a time, e.g. to
avoid bias, and propose different strategies to select the size of the chromosomal region, including fixed windows
in terms of consecutive probes or base pairs [28, 30, 34], chromosome arms or minimal common regions [26] or
performing kernel regression [19] where the probe signals are modeled with a smoothing function which accounts
for the non-uniform distribution of the genes along the genome.
Simulated data Two simulated data sets were generated following Schäfer et al. ([29]; 'Schäfer' data set) and
Bicciato et al. ([19]; 'Ferrari' data set). For the 'Schäfer' data set, CN and GE values are drawn from a normal
mixture where two components represent aberrations of different extent for each locus; 100 samples were created
for each input with mixture proportions of either 10% or 90% for the affected and normal regions. Varying noise
levels were imposed using multiple variance parameters (0.25, 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 times an adjusted median absolute
deviation of the data). The data points are organized in 16 equally sized blocks to mimic affected regions. The
'Ferrari' data with 6 samples was created by manipulating a renal cell carcinoma data set through permutation of
loci and adding or subtracting constants to both CN and GE values within 10 blocks of 10 Mbp. Normal control
data was generated by subtracting the median across the samples [19].
Real case studies Benchmarking on real case studies is crucial, but defining the ground truth is more challenging
than in simulation studies. We investigated two breast cancer data sets [12-13] and a leukemia study [39] using
expert-curated lists of known breast cancer genes [40], and leukemia genes from the Cancer Gene Census [41] as
the ground truth for the comparisons, respectively. The ‘Hyman’ data set [13] contains 14 breast cancer cell lines,
preprocessed as in [3]. The 'Pollack' data set [12] contains 41 breast cancer samples. The 'Mullighan' data set
consists of 171 acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) samples divided in 9 subtypes [39, 42]. CN data (Affymetrix
Human Mapping 500K) was downloaded from ftp://ftp.stjude.org and normalized with CRMA v2 [43]. The
log-additive model from the CRMA v1 algorithm [44] was used for probe summarization. Data values from Nsp
and Sty array of the 500K array set were combined and segmented with CBS [45]. Gene expression profiles of the
same ALL specimens, measured with the Affymetrix HG-U133A platform were obtained from GEO (GSE12995;
[46] and preprocessed with the RPA algorithm (R/Bioconductor; [47]) and EntrezID-based custom chip definition
file (v13; [48]). The reference for GE and CN data was defined as the median normalized log-ratios across all
samples. Probes with no EntrezID or location information and probes mapping to multiple locations or in sex
chromosomes were excluded. GE and CN probes were matched by selecting for each gene the closest CN probe.
Missing values were imputed by Gaussian random samples using the mean and variance of the data.

Implementation

CN preprocessing

Methodological character

Significance scoring

Reference

CNAmet (R)

called

custom statistic; two-step

PPT; aberrant regions

Hautaniemi et al., 2004;
Louhimo and Hautaniemi 2011

DR-Correlate / t-test (BC)

raw/segmented

two-step

PPT; p-values

Salari et al. 2010

DR-Correlate (BC)

raw/segmented

COR

PPT; p-values

Salari et al. 2010

edira (R)

raw/segmented

custom statistic; COR

NT; p-values

Schäfer et al. 2009

intCNGEan (R)

cghCall object

custom statistic; two-step

PNT; p-values

van Wieringen et al. 2009

Ortiz-Rivas (R)

raw/segmented

two-step

PNT; p-values

Ortiz et al. 2011

PMA (CRAN)

raw/segmented

LV; COR

PLV; p-values

Witten et al. 2009

PREDA (BC)

raw/segmented

custom statistic; two-step

PPT; aberrant regions/

Bicciato et al. 2009;

pint/simcca (BC)

raw/segmented

LV; COR

q-values
PLV; custom statistic

Ferrari et al., 2011
Lahti et al. 2009

SIM (BC)

raw/segmented

REG

PT; p-values

Menezes et al. 2009

/ Pearson, Spearman

PREPRINT VERSION November 19, 2011. In review.
Table 1 Summary of the comparison algorithms. The implementations are available through Bioconductor (BC);
CRAN; or R source code (R). The copy number preprocessing methods required by each algorithm are listed.
Abbreviations: Correlation analysis (COR), regression analysis (REG), latent variables analysis (LV), parametric
test (PT), nonparametric test (NT), permutation test based on statistic of nonparametric test (PNT), permutation test
based on statistic of parametric test (PPT), permutation test based on latent variable score (PLV).

Results
The overall cancer gene prioritization performance for the complete gene lists quantified by the AUC analysis is
summarized in Figure 1 (for the ROC curves, see Supplementary Figure S1). The highest median ranking across
the five benchmarking data sets was obtained by edira (1), followed by Ortiz-Estevez (4) and pint/simcca (4). of
these three methods outperformed the other methods on at least one data set. Note that the performance of edira
regarding the 'Schäfer' data set and of PREDA/SODEGIR regarding the 'Ferrari' data set needs to be interpreted
carefully, because these simulations were originally constructed to follow the particular modeling assumptions of
these algorithms in the original publications [19, 29].
Considering the true positive rate among the top-200 genes of each algorithm, pint/simcca had the highest median
ranking (1), followed by edira, Ortiz-Estevez and PREDA/SODEGIR (3; Figure 2). These four methods had
systematically the highest median rankings with multiple thresholds (20, 50, and 100 top genes); Notably, although
edira and PREDA/SODEGIR had the highest scores in the AUC analysis on the Schäfer data, most of other
algorithms outperformed these methods with respect to known true positives among the top findings in this data
set.
Differences regarding the running times were considerable (Supplementary Table 1). Evaluations were performed
on a 64-bit Linux machine with 2 AMD Opteron 2382 processors (K10 architecture, 4 kernels per processor, 2.6
GHz, 32 GB RAM); edira and PMA were the fastest methods with less than one minute running time in all data
sets, closely followed by Ortiz-Estevez with a maximum running time of less than 3 minutes. The number of
permutations in significance testing affects remarkably the running times of CNAmet, DR-Correlate, intCNGEan
and PREDA, although in the latest version of PREDA a parallelized version of the algorithm has been implemented
to reduce the computation time [49].

Figure 1 Area under curve (AUC) values in ROC analysis quantify cancer gene prioritization performance of the
methods for the 5 benchmarking data sets. High values indicate high true positive vs. false positive ratio among the
top findings; the dashed line indicates the expected AUC value for a random gene list (AUC = 0.5). The methods
have been ordered by their median rank across all data sets. For the ROC curves, see Supplementary Figure S1.

PREPRINT VERSION November 19, 2011. In review.

Figure 2 True positive rates among the top-200 genes from each comparison algorithm across the 5 benchmarking
data sets. The overall true positive rate is low in real case studies and the scale for the ‘Hyman’, ‘Mullighan’ and
‘Pollack’ data sets has been accordingly adjusted to highlight the differences. The methods have been ordered as in
Figure 1.

Discussion
Prioritization of disease genes is a key-modeling task in functional genomics [50-53]. This review provides an
overview and quantitative benchmarking of publicly available algorithms for detecting associations between GE
and CN alterations. This complements the recent review by Huang et al., [8], who pointed out the lack of
quantitative comparisons of the available methods. The ‘intcomp’ benchmarking package applied in this review is
freely available at R-forge (http://intcomp.r-forge.r-project.org/), facilitating transparent comparisons and the
addition of new algorithms, benchmarking procedures, and validation data sets.
The comparison of 12 different algorithms with respect to their performance in cancer gene prioritization revealed
systematic differences between the methods across different data sets, preprocessing scenarios, and sample sizes.
The model performance is in general better in the simulation studies, compared to the real cancer data sets,
suggesting that manually curated cancer gene lists may be only rough approximations of the ground truth in the real
case studies and that the simulations may have lower noise levels. Simulation procedures are only rough
approximations of the biological reality and the simulation approach can remarkably affect model performance. For
instance, variants of DR-Correlate and CNAmet performed well with ‘Schäfer’ simulated data but their
performance dropped close to random expectation in the ‘Ferrari’ data set. The ‘Ferrari’ simulations assume that
the CN effect is visible in all tumor samples, which can be particularly disadvantageous for methods that assume
high variation from heterogeneous aberration profiles across the samples, including DR-Correlate. The ‘Ferrari’
and ‘Schäfer’ simulated data sets were originally introduced in the PREDA/SODEGIR and edira publications
which potentially causes positive bias on these methods in the respective data sets. Overall, edira, Ortiz-Estevez,
and pint/simcca consistently outperformed the other methods. Considering both relative performance and running
time, edira and Ortiz-Estevez seem to offer a good trade-off but all methods have acceptable running times for
practical applications.
The choice of preprocessing and model parameters can have a remarkable effect on the results. The key decisions
in the context of GE/CN data are associated with selecting the CN preprocessing approach [54], size of the
investigated regions, and the matching approach for the integrated data sets. These and related issues are
extensively discussed in the recent review by Huang et al. [8]. It is also possible to utilize class information of the
samples, for instance by including both tumor and reference samples as in the DR-SAM algorithm [21]. However,
in many cases the references are included as a pooled control for two-color microarray experiments but not as a
separate group, as with the Hyman and Pollack data sets. Moreover, genomic aberrations often affect only a subset
of the cancer patients, and multiple cancer subtypes may be present, as for instance in the Mullighan data set.
Further integrative tasks include modeling of trans-regulatory effects of CN aberrations on genes outside the
affected region [55-56], disease subtype discovery [4], prediction of patient survival or of clinical covariates [57]
and integrative analysis of other data sources such as methylation [58], micro-RNA [59-60], or protein expression
[61]. However, fewer implementations for such tasks are currently available. Availability of reference

PREPRINT VERSION November 19, 2011. In review.
implementations for new computational approaches would facilitate benchmarking and optimizing the algorithms.
The standardized benchmarking pipeline introduced in this review can be adjusted to incorporate additional
algorithms and data sets as they become available.

CONCLUSION
A variety of methods is available for the integrative analysis of gene expression and copy number data. The
algorithms can be classified as two-step, regression, correlation-based, and latent variable approaches.
Implementation quality, running time and accuracy of the algorithm, as well as preprocessing, sample size and
availability of control samples need to be considered when selecting the appropriate computational method. The
benchmarking pipeline reveals systematic differences in cancer gene prioritization performance of available
implementations across five case studies.

KEY POINTS
–

The integrative analysis algorithms for gene expression and copy number data include two-step, regression,
correlation-based, and latent variable approaches

–

The benchmarking pipeline reveals systematic differences in the cancer gene prioritization performance of
currently available implementations

–

Implementation quality, running time and accuracy of the algorithm, as well as data preprocessing,
sample size and availability of control samples need to be considered when selecting the analysis approach

FUNDING
This work was supported by EuGESMA COST Action BM0801 (European Genomics and Epigenomics Study on
MDS and AML). LL has been supported by Helsinki Institute for Information Technology HIIT and Finnish Center
of Excellence on Adaptive Informatics Research (AIRC). MD is supported by the European Leukemia Network of
Excellence (LSHC-CT-2004); Deutsche Kinderkrebsstiftung [grant number DKS 2010.21] and Carreras
Foundation [grant number DJCLS 09/04]. MS is supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Research
Training Group Statistical Modeling). SB is supported from AIRC Special Program Molecular Clinical Oncology
“5 per mille”.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Francesco Ferrari for providing the simulated data set for this study.

REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]

Chin L, Gray J. Translating insights from the cancer genome into clinical practice. Nature 2008; 452:553-563.
Hawkins R, Hon G Ren B. Next-generation genomics: an integrative approach. Nat Rev Genet 2010; 11:476-486.
Berger J, Hautaniemi S, Mitra S, Astola J. Jointly analyzing gene expression and copy number data in breast cancer using
data reduction models. IEEE/ACM Tr Comp Biol Bioinf 2006; 3:2-16.
[4] Shen R, Olshen A, Ladanyi M. Integrative clustering of multiple genomic data types using a joint latent variable model
with application to breast and lung cancer subtype analysis. Bioinformatics 2009; 25:2906-2912.
[5] Witten D, Tibshirani R. Extensions of sparse canonical correlation analysis, with applications to genomic data. Stat
Appl Genet Mol Biol 2009; 8:28.
[6] The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Comprehensive genomic characterization defines human glioblastoma
genes and core pathways. Nature 2008; 455:1061-68.
[7] Gröttrup S, Hebestreit K, Klein H-U, Ruckert C, Bartenhagen C, Dugas M. The Leukemia Gene Atlas - A public
platform to support leukemia research. In: 19th Annual International Conference on Intelligent Systems for Molecular
Biology, Vienna, Austria, 2011.
[8] Huang N, Shah PK, Li C. Lessons from a decade of integrating cancer copy number alterations with gene expression
profiles. Brief Bioinform. Online September 23, 2011.
[9] De S, Babu M. Genomic neighborhood and the regulation of gene expression. Curr Op Cell Biol 2010; 22:7.
[10] Lee H, Kong S, Park P. Integrative analysis reveals the direct and indirect interactions between DNA copy number
aberrations and gene expression changes. Bioinformatics 2008; 24:889-896.

PREPRINT VERSION November 19, 2011. In review.
[11] Phillips J, Hayward S, Wang Y et al. The Consequences of Chromosomal Aneuploidy on Gene Expression Profiles in a
Cell Line Model for Prostate Carcinogenesis. Cancer Res 2001; 61:8143-9.
[12] Pollack J, Sorlie T, Perou C et al. Microarray analysis reveals a major direct role of DNA copy number alteration in the
transcriptional program of human breast tumors. PNAS 2001; 99:12963-8.
[13] Hyman E, Kauraniemi P, Hautaniemi S et al. Impact of DNA Amplification on Gene Expression Patterns in Breast
Cancer. Cancer Res 2002; 62:6240-5.
[14] Gu W, Choi H, Ghosh D. Global associations between copy number and transcript mRNA microarray data: an empirical
study. Cancer Informatics 2008; 6:17-23.
[15] Myllykangas S, Junnila S, Kokkola A et al. Integrated gene copy number and expression microarray analysis of gastric
cancer highlights potential target genes. Int J Cancer 2008; 123:817-25.
[16] Ortiz-Estevez M, De Las Rivas J, Fontanillo C, Rubio A. Segmentation of genomic and transcriptomic microarrays data
reveals major correlation between DNA copy number aberrations and gene-loci expression. Genomics 2011; 97:86-93.
[17] Harvey R, Mullighan C, Wang X et al. Identification of novel cluster groups in pediatric high-risk B-precursor acute
lymphoblastic leukemia with gene expression profiling: correlation with genome-wide DNA copy number alterations,
clinical characteristics, and outcome. Blood 2010; 116:4874-84.
[18] Yuan Y, Rueda O, Curtis C, Markowetz F. Penalized regression elucidaes aberration hotspots mediating subtype-specific
transcriptional responses in breast cancer. Bioinformatics. Epub ahead of print, 2011.
[19] Bicciato S, Spinelli R, Zampieri M et al. A computational procedure to identify significant overlap of differentially
expressed and genomic imbalanced regions in cancer datasets. Nucleic Acids Res 2009; 37:5057-70.
[20] van Wieringen W, van de Wiel M. Nonparametric testing for DNA copy number induced differential mRNA gene
expression. Biometrics 2009; 65:19-29.
[21] Salari K, Tibshirani R, Pollack J. DR-Integrator: A new analytic tool for integrating DNA copy number and gene
expression data. Bioinformatics 2010; 26:414-6.
[22] van Wieringen W, Belien J, Vosse S et al. ACE-it: a tool for genome-wide integration of gene dosage and RNA
expression data. Bioinformatics 2006; 22:1919-20.
[23] Akavia U, Litvin O, Kim J. An integrated approach to uncover drivers of cancer. Cell 2010; 143:1005-17.
[24] Hautaniemi S, Ringnér M, Kauraniemi P et al. A strategy for identifying putative causes of gene expression variation in
human cancers. J Franklin Institute 2004; 341:77-88.
[25] Solvang H, Lingjaerde O, Frigessi A, Borresen-Dale A, Kristensen V. Linear and non-linear dependencies between
copy number aberrations and mRNA expression reveal distinct molecular pathways in breast cancer. BMC
Bioinformatics 2011; 12:197.
[26] Menezes R, Boetzer M, Sieswerda M et al. Integrated analysis of DNA copy number and gene expression microarray
analysis using gene sets. BMC Bioinformatics 2009; 10:203.
[27] Peng J, Zhu J, Bergamaschi A et al. Regularized multivariate regression for identifying master predictors with application
to integrative genomics study of breast cancer. Ann App Stat 2010; 4:53-77.
[28] Stranger B, Forrest M, Dunning M et al. Relative impact of nucleotide and copy number variation on gene expression
phenotypes. Science 2007; 315:848-853.
[29] Schäfer M, Schwender H, Merk S et al. Integrative analysis of copy number alterations and gene expression: a bivariate
assessment of equally directed abnormalities. Bioinformatics 2009; 25:3228-35.
[30] Lipson D, Ben-Dor A, Dehan E, Yakhini Z. Joint analysis of DNA copy numbers and gene expression levels. In:
Jonassen I, Kim, J (eds.). Proc Algorithms in Bioinformatics: 4th International Workshop WABI 2004. Germany:
Springer, 2004.
[31] Soneson C, Lilljebjorn H, Fioretos T, Fontes M. Integrative analysis of gene expression and copy number alterations
using canonical correlation analysis. BMC Bioinformatics 2010; 11:191.
[32] Parkhomenko E, Tritchler D, Beyene J. Sparse Canonical Correlation Analysis with Application to Genomic Data
Integration. Stat App Genet Mol Biol 2009; 8:1.
[33] Waaijenborg C, Verselewel de Witt Hamer PC, Zwinderman AH. Quantifying the association between gene expressions
and DNA-markers by penalized canonical correlation analysis. Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol 2008; 7:3.
[34] Lahti L, Myllykangas S, Knuutila S, Kaski S. Dependency detection with similarity constraints. In: Proc MLSP'09 IEEE
International Workshop on Machine Learning for Signal Processing XIX, Piscataway, NJ, USA: IEEE 2009; pp. 89-94.
[35] Sheng J, Deng H, Calhoun V, Wang Y. Integrated analysis of gene expression and copy number data on gene shaving
using independent component analysis. IEEE Tr Comp Biol Bioinf Epub ahead of print, 2011.
[36] R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical
Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2009.
[37] Louhimo R, Hautaniemi S. CNAmet: an R package for integrating copy number, methylation and expression data.
Bioinformatics 2011; 27:887-8.
[38] Haverty P, Fridlyand J, Li L et al. High-resolution genomic and expression analyses of copy number alterations in breast
tumors. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2008; 47:530-42.
[39] Mullighan C, Goorha S, Radtke I et al. Genome-wide analysis of genetic alterations in acute lymphoblastic leukaemia.
Nature 2007; 446:758-64.
[40] Baasiri R, Glasser S, Steffen D, Wheeler D. The breast cancer gene database: a collaborative information resource.

PREPRINT VERSION November 19, 2011. In review.
Oncogene 1999; 18:7958-65. URL: http://www.tumor-gene.org/TGDB/tgdb.html (5 May 2010, date last accessed)
[41] Futreal P, Coin L, Marshall M et al. A census of human cancer genes. Nat Rev Cancer 2004; 4:177-83. URL:
http://www.sanger.ac.uk/Genet/CGP/Census (11 February 2010, date last accessed).
[42] Mullighan C, Miller C, Radtke I et al. BCR-ABL1 lymphoblastic leukaemia is characterized by the deletion of Ikaros.
Nature 2008; 453:110-4.
[43] Bengtsson H, Wirapati P, Speed TP. A single-array preprocessing method for estimating full-resolution raw copy
numbers from all Affymetrix genotyping arrays including GenomeWideSNP 5 & 6. Bioinformatics 2009; 25:2149-56.
[44] Bengtsson H, Irizarry R, Carvalho B, Speed TP. Estimation and assessment of raw copy numbers at the single locus
level. Bioinformatics 2008; 24:759-67.
[45] Olshen A, Venkatraman E, Lucito R, Wigler M. Circular binary segmentation for the analysis of array-based DNA copy
number data. Biostatistics 2004; 5:557-72.
[46] Mullighan C, Su X, Zhang J et al. Deletion of IKZF1 and prognosis in acute lymphoblastic leukemia. New England
Journal of Medicine 2009; 360:470-80.
[47] Lahti L, Elo LL, Aittokallio T, Kaski S. Probabilistic analysis of probe reliability in differential gene expression studies
with short oligonucleotide arrays. IEEE/ACM Tr Comp Biol Bioinf 2011; 8:217-25.
[48] Dai M, Wang P, Boyd A et al. Evolving gene/transcript definitions significantly alter the interpretation of GeneChip data.
Nucleic Acids Res 2005; 33:e175.
[49] Ferrari F, Solari A, Battaglia C, Bicciato S. PREDA: an R-package to identify regional variations in genomic data.
Bioinformatics 2011; 27:2446-7.
[50] Aerts S, Lambrechts D, Maity S. Gene prioritization through genomic data fusion. Nat Biotech 2006; 24:538-44.
[51] de Bie T, Tranchevent L-C, van Oeffelen L, Moreau Y. Kernel-based data fusion for gene prioritization. Bioinformatics
2007; 23:i125-32.
[52] Kao C-F, Fang Y-S, Zhao Z, Kuo P-H. Prioritization and Evaluation of Depression Candidate Genes by Combining
Multidimensional Data Resources. PLoS One 2011; 6:e18696.
[53] Tranchevent L-C, Capdevila F, Nitsch D et al. A guide to web tools to prioritize candidate genes. Brief Bioinform 2010;
12:22-32.
[54] van Wieringen W, van de Wiel M, Ylstra B. Normalized, segmented or called aCGH data? Cancer Informatics 2007;
3:321-7.
[55] Lê Cao K-A, González I, Dèjean S. integrOmics: an R package to unravel relationships between two omics datasets.
Bioinformatics 2009; 25:2855-6.
[56] Vaske C, Benz S, Sanborn J et al. Inference of patient-specific pathway activities from multidimensional cancer
genomics data using PARADIGM. Bioinformatics 2010; 26:i237-45.
[57] Witten D, Tibshirani R, Hastie T. A penalized matrix decomposition, with applications to sparse principal components
and canonical correlation analysis. Biostatistics 2009; 10:515-34.
[58] Andrews J, Kennette W, Pilon J. Multi-platform whole-genome microarray analyses refine the epigenetic signature of
breast cancer metastasis with gene expression and copy number. PLoS One 2010; 5:e8665.
[59] Gaire R, Bailey J, Bearfoot J et al. MIRAGAA - a methodology for finding coordinated effects of microRNA expression
changes and genome aberrations in cancer. Bioinformatics 2010; 26:161-7.
[60] Qin L-X. An Integrative Analysis of microRNA and mRNA Expression - A Case Study. Cancer Informatics 2008;
6:369-79.
[61] Johnson N, Speirs V, Curtin N, Hall A. A comparative study of genome-wide SNP, CGH microrray and protein
expression analysis to explore genotypic and phenotypic mechanisms of acquired antiestrogen resistance in breast cancer.
Breast Cancer Res and Treatment 2008; 111:55-63.

Supplementary Material
CNAmet
DR-Cor/Pearson
DR-Cor/Spearman
DR-Cor/t-test
edira
intCNGEan
Ortiz-Estevez
pint
PMA
PREDA
SIM/full
SIM/window

Ferrari
106.96
168.50
310.52
0.41
5.74
0.53
86.20
0.34
79.23
87.51
19.15

Schaefer
52.34
61.11
120.40
67.52
0.23
47.64
2.84
130.20
0.33
155.65
155.96
171.96

Hyman
77.44
70.26
135.04
68.02
0.22
20.05
0.65
29.75
0.18
59.95
13.63
2.81

Mullighan
28.38
24.39
45.08
26.18
0.11
45.64
1.24
6.80
0.17
360.60
4.77
1.28

Pollack
44.99
41.41
78.41
43.38
0.15
23.95
1.07
19.13
0.13
106.53
5.14
1.40

Supplementary Table 1 Running times (in minutes) for the comparison algorithms in the five benchmarking data
sets.

PREPRINT VERSION November 19, 2011. In review.

Supplementary Figure 1 Receiver-Operator Characteristic (ROC) curves characterize the cancer gene
prioritization performance of the comparison algorithms in two simulated data sets (‘Ferrari’ and ‘Schäfer’), two
breast cancer data sets (‘Hyman’ and ‘Pollack’), and one leukemia data set (‘Mullighan’) based on golden standard
lists of custom cancer genes.

