NMF-Based Biclustering For Multi-Tissue Transcriptomic Analysis Under Dietary Interventions


Abstract

The objective of this study was to explore how dietary interventions manifest themselves at the level of gene co-expression in several tissues in cattle using a robust approach based on modules which underpin complex integrative frameworks. For this purpose, we used the public available RNA-seq dataset GSE62938 which contained transcriptomic profiles of subcutaneous adipose tissue, perirenal adipose tissue and longissimus dorsi muscle from animals fed either forage and concentrate based diets. These tissues are metabolically very different systems, and dietary related transcriptional responses likely vary with tissue and depth of response. After preprocessing and normalization, each tissue was considered separately in order to accommodate the strong tissue specific expression differences. Principal component analysis demonstrated that tissue origin was the principal source of global transcriptional variation and PC1 accounted for approximately 32–50% of the total variance between tissues. This was followed by application of non-negative matrix factorization (NMF) as a biclustering method in its role as an engine for the discovery of coherent gene- and sample-modules. using a data driven rank selection identified k = 4 modules for both adipose tissues and k = 5 modules for skeletal muscle with consensus analyses showing stable, reproducible module structures despite repeated model initializations. NMF identified orthogonal tissue specific gene and sample modules with variable sample loading patterns. ANOVA permutation analysis revealed that dietary impacts were not uniformly distributed throughout the transcriptome, but rather were concentrated in a set of modulated modules. In subcutaneous adipose tissue one module explained 18–22% variance in the module loadings (P_perm < 0.01) and in longissimus dorsi muscle a similar transcript sparsity pattern explained 12-15% variance of the block pairwise similarities (P_perm < 0.05). Other modules were weakly or non-significantly correlated with dietary treatment. In conclusion, we proposed an NMF-based reusable biclustering framework for multi-tissue transcriptomic analyses in dietary intervention. By focusing condition-specific transcriptional responses to coherent gene–sample modules rather than the whole transcriptome, the proposed framework enables the discovery of slight, tissue-specific dietary effects with potential biological and metabolic consequences.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].