Onvergence of the MCMC chain. For the sake of simplicity, we report only results for the second simulation. In Figure 2 we show the posterior probabilities of yw positive interaction between platforms (fdg =0g ), differential w CNA (fdg =0g) and joint CNA and RNA differential expression y w (fdg =0,dg =0g ). As we expected, posterior probabilities of positive interaction between platforms for the first 50 genes and posterior porbabilities of differential CNA and differential joint behaviour for the first 100 genes are among the highest. While these simulations merely show that our proposed models achieve what is expected, we direct attention to selection of differentially behaved genes with multiplicity control and then data analysis based on breast cancer samples.ResultsWe applied our model to the breast cancer data set. As comparison, we also applied a simpler version of our models by setting ldgyw 0 for all the genes. The simpler models assume that the gene expression and copy numbers are independent and therefore there is no integration. We call these simpler versions “get 78919-13-8 marginal models”. In the upper plot of Figure 3 dots refer to the posterior probabilities of DNA copy number amplification, w y P(dg 1Dwb(g)t ) , and over expression, P(dg 1Dygt ) , based on the marginal models; black dots highlight the list of over-expressed genes which jointly showed copy number amplification obtained through the integrated model. As expected the joint model selects, coherently, mostly genes in the upper right corner, but still differently from the intersection between the marginal ones. A simple model checking was achieved plotting posterior probabilities of differential gene expression and difference in means of the gene expression measurements for TN and non TN group. Following the same criteria, we plotted posterior probabilities of positive interaction between platforms and sample correlations. Lower plots of Figure 3 show, respectively, a very good match between no difference in sample means and low posterior probabilities of differential 18055761 expression, and between strong positive sample correlations and high posterior probabilities of positive interaction between platforms. Our main focus was on five lists of interesting genes: under (over)expressed genes which jointly showed DNA copy number deletion (amplification) in TN subgroup, under (over)-expressed genes conditional on DNA copy number aberration only in TN subgroup and genes which showed positive interaction between the two platforms. We therefore respectively defined w y rg P(dg {1,dg {1Dwb(g)t ,ygt ) N Nw y rg P(dg 1,dg 1Dwb(g)t ,ygt )where t 1,:::T and b(g) indicates all the probes belonging to the gene g. FDR levels were computed with the algorithm presented in the previous section for the distinct rg ‘s, and genes were selected choosing a cutoff a 0:05 The lists of selected genes could be of greater interest for clinicians since they indicate which genes show differential expression and copy number variation in TN patients versus patients who tests positively for ER and HER2 receptors. On the other hand, for prediction of pCR, we split the data sets into a GW0742 manufacturer training set and a test set; the training set, consisting of 94 patients, was used to obtain samples from the posterior distribution of the parameters while the test set, consisting of 22, to check for prediction performances through the ROC curve. Both sets were randomly selected, and numerosities with respect to pCR of.Onvergence of the MCMC chain. For the sake of simplicity, we report only results for the second simulation. In Figure 2 we show the posterior probabilities of yw positive interaction between platforms (fdg =0g ), differential w CNA (fdg =0g) and joint CNA and RNA differential expression y w (fdg =0,dg =0g ). As we expected, posterior probabilities of positive interaction between platforms for the first 50 genes and posterior porbabilities of differential CNA and differential joint behaviour for the first 100 genes are among the highest. While these simulations merely show that our proposed models achieve what is expected, we direct attention to selection of differentially behaved genes with multiplicity control and then data analysis based on breast cancer samples.ResultsWe applied our model to the breast cancer data set. As comparison, we also applied a simpler version of our models by setting ldgyw 0 for all the genes. The simpler models assume that the gene expression and copy numbers are independent and therefore there is no integration. We call these simpler versions “marginal models”. In the upper plot of Figure 3 dots refer to the posterior probabilities of DNA copy number amplification, w y P(dg 1Dwb(g)t ) , and over expression, P(dg 1Dygt ) , based on the marginal models; black dots highlight the list of over-expressed genes which jointly showed copy number amplification obtained through the integrated model. As expected the joint model selects, coherently, mostly genes in the upper right corner, but still differently from the intersection between the marginal ones. A simple model checking was achieved plotting posterior probabilities of differential gene expression and difference in means of the gene expression measurements for TN and non TN group. Following the same criteria, we plotted posterior probabilities of positive interaction between platforms and sample correlations. Lower plots of Figure 3 show, respectively, a very good match between no difference in sample means and low posterior probabilities of differential 18055761 expression, and between strong positive sample correlations and high posterior probabilities of positive interaction between platforms. Our main focus was on five lists of interesting genes: under (over)expressed genes which jointly showed DNA copy number deletion (amplification) in TN subgroup, under (over)-expressed genes conditional on DNA copy number aberration only in TN subgroup and genes which showed positive interaction between the two platforms. We therefore respectively defined w y rg P(dg {1,dg {1Dwb(g)t ,ygt ) N Nw y rg P(dg 1,dg 1Dwb(g)t ,ygt )where t 1,:::T and b(g) indicates all the probes belonging to the gene g. FDR levels were computed with the algorithm presented in the previous section for the distinct rg ‘s, and genes were selected choosing a cutoff a 0:05 The lists of selected genes could be of greater interest for clinicians since they indicate which genes show differential expression and copy number variation in TN patients versus patients who tests positively for ER and HER2 receptors. On the other hand, for prediction of pCR, we split the data sets into a training set and a test set; the training set, consisting of 94 patients, was used to obtain samples from the posterior distribution of the parameters while the test set, consisting of 22, to check for prediction performances through the ROC curve. Both sets were randomly selected, and numerosities with respect to pCR of.