The technological advancements of the modern era have enabled the collection of huge amounts of data in science and beyond. Extracting useful information from such massive datasets is an ongoing challenge as traditional data visualization tools typically do not scale well in high-dimensional settings. An existing visualization technique that is particularly well suited to visualizing large datasets is the heatmap. Although heatmaps are extremely popular in fields such as bioinformatics, they remain a severely underutilized visualization tool in modern data analysis. This paper introduces superheat, a new R package that provides an extremely flexible and customizable platform for visualizing complex datasets. Superheat produces attractive and extendable heatmaps to which the user can add a response variable as a scatterplot, model results as boxplots, correlation information as barplots, and more. The goal of this paper is two-fold: (1) to demonstrate the potential of the heatmap as a core visualization method for a range of data types, and (2) to highlight the customizability and ease of implementation of the superheat R package for creating beautiful and extendable heatmaps. The capabilities and fundamental applicability of the superheat package will be explored via three reproducible case studies, each based on publicly available data sources.

No abstract

BackgroundClassical approaches to predicting patient clinical outcome via gene expression information are primarily based on differential expression of unrelated genes (single-gene approaches) or genes related by, for example, biologic pathway or function (gene-sets). Recently, network-based approaches utilising interaction information between genes have emerged. An open problem is whether such approaches add value to the more traditional methods of signature modelling. We explored this question via comparison of the most widely employed single-gene, gene-set, and network-based methods, using gene expression microarray data from two different cancers: melanoma and ovarian. We considered two kinds of network approaches. The first of these identifies informative genes using gene expression and network connectivity information combined, the latter drawn from prior knowledge of protein-protein interactions. The second approach focuses on identification of informative sub-networks (small networks of interacting proteins, again from prior knowledge networks). For all methods we performed 100 rounds of 5-fold cross-validation under 3 different classifiers. For network-based approaches, we considered two different protein-protein interaction networks. We quantified resulting patterns of misclassification and discussed the relative value of each relative to ongoing development of prognostic biomarkers.ResultsWe found that single-gene, gene-set and network methods yielded similar error rates in melanoma and ovarian cancer data. Crucially, however, our novel and detailed patient-level analyses revealed that the different methods were correctly classifying alternate subsets of patients in each cohort. We also found that the network-based NetRank feature selection method was the most stable.ConclusionsNext-generation methods of gene expression signature modelling harness data from external networks and are foreshadowed as a standard mode of analysis. But what do they add to traditional approaches? Our findings indicate there is value in the way in which different subspaces of the patient sample are captured differently among the various methods, highlighting the possibility of 'combination' classifiers capable of identifying which patients will be more accurately classified by one particular method over another. We have seen this clearly for the first time because of our in-depth analysis at the level of individual patients.

What actions can we take to foster diverse and inclusive workplaces in the broad fields around data science? This paper reports from a discussion in which researchers from many different disciplines and departments raised questions and shared their experiences with various aspects around diversity, inclusion, and equity. The issues we discuss include fostering inclusive interpersonal and small group dynamics, rules and codes of conduct, increasing diversity in less-representative groups and disciplines, organizing events for diversity and inclusion, and long-term efforts to champion change.

No abstract