TY - JOUR
T1 - Statistical testing in transcriptomic-neuroimaging studies
T2 - A how-to and evaluation of methods assessing spatial and gene specificity
AU - Wei, Yongbin
AU - de Lange, Siemon C.
AU - Pijnenburg, Rory
AU - Scholtens, Lianne H.
AU - Ardesch, Dirk Jan
AU - Watanabe, Kyoko
AU - Posthuma, Danielle
AU - van den Heuvel, Martijn P.
N1 - Funding Information: Martijn P. van den Heuvel was supported by an ALW open (ALWOP.179), a VIDI (452‐16‐015) grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), and an ERC Consolidator grant (ID 101001062) of the European Research Council. D.P. was supported by The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO VICI 453‐14‐005 and NWO Gravitation: BRAINSCAPES: A Roadmap from Neurogenetics to Neurobiology 024.004.012) and a European Research Council advanced grant (ERC‐2018‐AdG GWAS2FUNC 834057). Siemon C. de Lange was supported by the Amsterdam Neuroscience alliance grant and ZonMw Open Competition, project REMOVE 09120011910032. Human neuroimaging data were kindly provided by the Human Connectome Project, WU‐Minn Consortium (Principal Investigators: David Van Essen and Kamil Ugurbil; 1U54MH091657) funded by the 16 NIH Institutes and Centers that support the NIH Blueprint for Neuroscience Research; and by the McDonnell Center for Systems Neuroscience at Washington University. Publisher Copyright: © 2021 The Authors. Human Brain Mapping published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
PY - 2022/2/15
Y1 - 2022/2/15
N2 - Multiscale integration of gene transcriptomic and neuroimaging data is becoming a widely used approach for exploring the molecular underpinnings of large-scale brain organization in health and disease. Proper statistical evaluation of determined associations between imaging-based phenotypic and transcriptomic data is key in these explorations, in particular to establish whether observed associations exceed “chance level” of random, nonspecific effects. Recent approaches have shown the importance of statistical models that can correct for spatial autocorrelation effects in the data to avoid inflation of reported statistics. Here, we discuss the need for examination of a second category of statistical models in transcriptomic-neuroimaging analyses, namely those that can provide “gene specificity.” By means of a couple of simple examples of commonly performed transcriptomic-neuroimaging analyses, we illustrate some of the potentials and challenges of transcriptomic-imaging analyses, showing that providing gene specificity on observed transcriptomic-neuroimaging effects is of high importance to avoid reports of nonspecific effects. Through means of simulations we show that the rate of reported nonspecific effects (i.e., effects that cannot be specifically linked to a specific gene or gene-set) can run as high as 60%, with only less than 5% of transcriptomic-neuroimaging associations observed through ordinary linear regression analyses showing both spatial and gene specificity. We provide a discussion, a tutorial, and an easy-to-use toolbox for the different options of null models in transcriptomic-neuroimaging analyses.
AB - Multiscale integration of gene transcriptomic and neuroimaging data is becoming a widely used approach for exploring the molecular underpinnings of large-scale brain organization in health and disease. Proper statistical evaluation of determined associations between imaging-based phenotypic and transcriptomic data is key in these explorations, in particular to establish whether observed associations exceed “chance level” of random, nonspecific effects. Recent approaches have shown the importance of statistical models that can correct for spatial autocorrelation effects in the data to avoid inflation of reported statistics. Here, we discuss the need for examination of a second category of statistical models in transcriptomic-neuroimaging analyses, namely those that can provide “gene specificity.” By means of a couple of simple examples of commonly performed transcriptomic-neuroimaging analyses, we illustrate some of the potentials and challenges of transcriptomic-imaging analyses, showing that providing gene specificity on observed transcriptomic-neuroimaging effects is of high importance to avoid reports of nonspecific effects. Through means of simulations we show that the rate of reported nonspecific effects (i.e., effects that cannot be specifically linked to a specific gene or gene-set) can run as high as 60%, with only less than 5% of transcriptomic-neuroimaging associations observed through ordinary linear regression analyses showing both spatial and gene specificity. We provide a discussion, a tutorial, and an easy-to-use toolbox for the different options of null models in transcriptomic-neuroimaging analyses.
KW - coexpression
KW - gene expression
KW - gene specificity
KW - neuroimaging
KW - null model
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85120870949&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85120870949&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.25711
DO - https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.25711
M3 - Article
C2 - 34862695
SN - 1065-9471
VL - 43
SP - 885
EP - 901
JO - Human brain mapping
JF - Human brain mapping
IS - 3
ER -