Volume 6 Supplement 3
The International Conference on Intelligent Biology and Medicine (ICIBM): Systems Biology
An improved dimensionality reduction method for metatranscriptome indexing based diseases classification
 Yin Wang^{1},
 Yuhua Zhou^{4},
 Yixue Li^{1, 2, 3},
 Zongxin Ling^{5},
 Yan Zhu^{6},
 Xiaokui Guo^{4}Email author and
 Hong Sun^{2, 3}Email author
DOI: 10.1186/175205096S3S12
© Wang et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012
Published: 17 December 2012
Abstract
Background
Bacterial 16S Ribosomal RNAs profiling have been widely used in the classification of microbiota associated diseases. Dimensionality reduction is among the keys in mining highdimensional 16S rRNAs' expression data. High levels of sparsity and redundancy are common in 16S rRNA gene microbial surveys. Traditional feature selection methods are generally restricted to measuring correlated abundances, and are limited in discrimination when so few microbes are actually shared across communities.
Results
Here we present a Feature Merging and Selection algorithm (FMS) to deal with 16S rRNAs' expression data. By integrating Linear Discriminant Analysis method, FMS can reduce the feature dimension with higher accuracy and preserve the relationship between different features as well. Two 16S rRNAs' expression datasets of pneumonia and dental decay patients were used to test the validity of the algorithm. Combined with SVM, FMS discriminated different classes of both pneumonia and dental caries better than other popular feature selection methods.
Conclusions
FMS projects data into lower dimension with preservation of enough features, and thus improve the intelligibility of the result. The results showed that FMS is a more valid and reliable methods in feature reduction.
Background
The biogeography of microbiota in the human body are linked intimately with aspects of host metabolism, physiology and susceptibility to disease [1, 2]. Previous studies have identified that dysbiosis of the distribution or infection of pathogenic microbiota would lead to some human diseases, such as pneumonia [3], dental caries [4], cutaneous disease [5], or other disease [6, 7]. Characterization of the abundant and rare microbiota represents essential groundwork to human's health [3, 8]. Knowledge of the human microbiome has been expanded greatly by various techniques such as 16S rRNA gene sequencing and metagenomics, etc. Gene expression sequencing enables the simultaneous measurement of the expression levels of thousands of genes. Like gene selection, the curse of dimensionality also applies to the problem of microbiota classification [9, 10].
The ability to successfully distinguish between disease classes using gene expression data is an important aspect of approaches to disease classification, the discrimination methods include nearestneighbor, linear discriminant analysis, and classification trees etc [11]. The nature of gene expression data and its acquisition means that it is subject to the curse of dimensionality, the situation where there are vastly more measurable features (genes) than there are samples. Dimension reduction methods are much used for classification or for obtaining lowdimensional representations of datasets. Traditionally, there are two types of methods used to reduce dimensionality. One is feature selection and the other is feature transformation [12]. Feature selection techniques do not alter the original representation of the features, but merely select a subset of features derived from the large set of profiles. Three kinds of feature selection were widely used: filter methods, wrapper methods and embedded methods [13]. However, most of existing feature selection methods reduce a feature space of high dimensionality into a manageable one at the cost of losing the relationship between different features.
Contrasted with feature selection, feature transformation methods create a new feature space with an optimal subset of predictive features measured in the original data. Some traditional feature transformation methods, such as principal component analysis (PCA) and linear discriminant analysis (LDA), output a combination of original features. PCA converts a set of possibly correlated variables into a set of orthogonal factors that efficiently explain the variance of the observations. LDA transforms original features to k1 dimensions if there are k categories of training data. These traditional methods are fast and easy to compute, but there are some weakness [14], like that not all the discrimination vectors obtained are useful in pattern classification and that features of different dimensions are overlapping, thus it is often difficult to interpret the results.
Previous surveys showed that taxon relative abundance vectors from 16S rRNA genes expression provide a baseline to study the role of bacterial communities in disease states [15–17]. However, high levels of sparsity are common in 16S rRNA gene microbial surveys, presenting the fundamental challenge for their successful analysis. Identifying which microbes will produce good discrimination remains challenging when so few microbes are actually shared across communities. Besides, in a typical study of microbiota, 16S rRNAs' expression level of different samples might be redundant. Traditional feature selection methods are generally restricted to measuring correlated abundances, and are limited in their ability to maintain the information due to the removal of redundant features. In microbiota analysis, it is critical to preserve enough features to improve the intelligibility with minimized classification error rate and effectively reduced feature dimension simultaneously. To solve these problem, we introduced an improved Feature Merging and Selection algorithm (FMS in short) to identify combinations of 16S rRNA genes that give the best discrimination of sample groups. FMS extracts essential features from the high dimension feature space, then, an efficient classifier is employed with a lower classification error rate, to project data into lower dimension and preserve enough features and thus improve the intelligibility of the result. The performances were tested by 16S rRNAs' expression datasets of pneumonia patients and that of dentes cariosus patients.
Results
Feature Merging and Selection algorithm
Two statistics methods were considered to handle the continuous and sparse data of 16S rRNAs' expression levels. Fisher statistic was used to test the classification ability of features and Pearson Correlation Coefficient was used to describe the redundancy between features. We developed a new method called Feature Merging and Selection algorithm, which combined Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) method to learn linear relationship between different features. Classical LDA requires the total scatter matrix to be nonsingular. However, in gene expression data analysis, all scatter matrices in question can be singular since the data points are from a very highdimensional space and in general the sample size does not exceed this dimension. To deal with the singularity problems, classical LDA method was modified in a way that an unit diagonal matrix with small weights was added to the withinclass scatter matrix. The procedure continued until the remaining matrix eventually became nonsingular.
Step 1: Initialization: set weights of all the features to 1 and the counter to 0; label each feature from 1 to n, n is the total number of features.
Step 2: Loop from step 2 to step 7 until the counter equals to n1.
Step 3: Delete features of zero variance, and add the total number of deleted features to the counter.
Step 4: Compute pairwise relationship of the remaining features using modified LDA, and preserve the combination features with maximal Fisher statistics. The Fisher statistics is defined as $\frac{{\displaystyle \sum _{k}}{n}_{k}{\left({m}_{k}m\right)}^{2}/\left(K1\right)}{{\displaystyle \sum _{k}}\left({n}_{k}1\right){{\sigma}_{k}}^{2}/\left(nK\right)}$, where K is the total number of classes, n is the size of all the samples, n_{ k } is the size of the k th class, m_{ k } is the mean value of the sample within the k th class, m is the mean value of all the samples, and ${\sigma}_{k}^{2}$ is the variance of the k th class.
Step 5: Measure the combination ability by combining Fisher statistics method and Pearson correlation coefficient methods, and calculate the merging value = (new value of Fisher statistics)*(Pearson Correlation Coefficient)/(geometric mean values of Fisher statistics of the original features).
Step 6: Select and merge the feature pair with the greatest merging value, save the original labels, and multiply the weight by previously trained weight.
Step 7: Normalize the weight; add 1 to the counter.
Step 8: Recompute the weight of each combination using LDA until the original feature number is less than two. Preserve the combination with maximal Fisher statistics value and normalize the weights.
After feature merging, the resulting combinations reveals the relationship between the original features. With more features deleted, linear bias is getting greater, but variance is getting lower; and vice versa. To compromise between the bias and variance criteria, we selected the dimension reduction ratios by 5fold proportional cross validation [12, 18]. The whole data was partitioned into two parts as training data and test data. Training data was used for feature merging to learn relationship between features and output combination of features. Test data was used to estimate the error rate of feature merging. If there exists equal error rates among two or more feature merging performances, the one with the largest merging degree will be left to obtain lower dimension feature vectors.
To simplify the model, features were deleted based on the resulting combinations after feature merging and cross validation. Values of fisher statistics were multiplied by the weight of each combination. Features were sorted in ascending order by absolute value of their weights and were deleted one by one, and the error rate were got by 5fold proportional cross validation. For those classification performances with equal error rates, the decision was then made to preserve the resulting combination with lower dimensions or less number of features. Unimportant features were thus deleted to simplify the model. In summary, FMS determine the final dimensionality and thus the optimal number of features which yields the lowest error rate got by cross validation. FMS algorithm is a dimensionality reduction method and should be used with combination of a classifier.
Fisher method has a high classification ability on datasets with low noise, but its performance can be reduced because of the noisy data. To address the weakness of fisher method when dealing with noisy data, mutual information method was used for feature deletion instead of Fisher statistic method. Under Occam's razor [19], we considered classification combinations with lowest dimension as the simplest result. We calculated the error rate plus penalty with each dimension as a criteria for feature selection [13], and selected the first m performances with the lowest value, where m is log(N) and N is the original dimension. Weight of penalty was set as the range of the first m error rates divided by the range of relevance dimension. If the first t feature merging performances got same value of error rate plus penalty, then set m to log(N)+t1. This method provided an alternative way to deal with noisy data.
Examples of FMS algorithm
We first tested the FMS algorithm on the 16S rRNAs' expression profiles got from pneumonia samples belonged to three classes, 101 patients with hospitalacquired pneumonia (HAP), 43 patients with communityacquired pneumonia (CAP), and 42 normal persons as control [3]. We assigned the 16S rRNAs' expression profiles into the microbe taxonomy as 16S rRNA sequences are often conserved within a species and generally different between species. The expression data matrix was further expressed as percentage values of microbiota. Features with zero variance were deleted. The whole data was partitioned into two parts for training and testing the model. The training data included profiles from 71 cases of HAP, 32 cases of CAP and 30 cases of normal samples and the test data included profiles from 30 cases of HAP , 13 cases of CAP and 12 cases of normal samples. The training data was used for cross validation, and the test data was use to control the error rate. Fivefold proportional cross validation was performed on the training data to determine the degree of feature merging and feature deletion.
The feature merging algorithm was then performed on the whole training data based on the obtained degrees of feature merging and feature deletion, the output reflected the relationship between combinations of features. Then the classifier was used to produce a classification on test data, and error rate was obtained. Knearest neighbor algorithm (kNN) and Support vector machine (SVM) are widely used tools for classification. SVM was selected as classifier along with the algorithm because of its lower error rate for the pneumonia training data. Four widely used feature selection methods, mRMR method [20], Information Gain method [21], χ^{2} statistic [22] and KruskalWallis test method [23] were used as controls to test the validity of FMS method.
Two types of classification were considered: threeclass problem and twoclass problem. The former outputs three classes, i.e. HAP, CAP and normal, the later outputs two classes, i.e. pneumonia (HAP and CAP) and normal. As SVMs are inherently twoclass classifiers, therefore oneagainstall decomposition technique was used to divide a threeclass classification problem into two binary class ones. Normal samples were discriminated from pneumonia samples at first step, then HAP and CAP were discriminated. For the two class problem, the training data was imbalanced because of the lesser number of normal samples compared with pneumonia samples. Pneumonia samples were thus clustered into three subgroups [24], then each pneumonia subgroup was mixed with data from normal samples to form a training dataset. The model was trained on all mixed datasets. Each classification performance on test data gave a vote to each class.
Classification ability on pneumonia data in 3class problem
Method  Error rate  Dimension  Feature number  Note  

On training data  On test data  
svm/FMS  0.1895  0.2637  29  129  
svm/mRMR  0.2267  0.3103  38  38  
svm/KruskalWallis  0.1984  0.3816  107  107  
svm/InformationGain  0.2425  0.3684  28  28  
svm/χ2 statistic  0.2127  0.4308  125  125  
svm  0.2841  0.4017  137  137  
kNN/FMS  0.2013  0.3406  112  133  k = 1 
kNN/mRMR  0.2635  0.3774  130  130  k = 1 
kNN/KruskalWallis  0.2492  0.3795  134  134  k = 1 
kNN/InformationGain  0.2635  0.3774  130  130  k = 1 
kNN/χ2 statistic  0.2537  0.4128  124  124  k = 1 
kNN  0.2635  0.3774  137  137  k = 1 
Classification ability on pneumonia data in 2class problem.
Method  Error rate  Dimension  Feature number  Note  

On training data  On test data  
svm/FMS  0.0922  0.1279  42  123  
svm/mRMR  0.1313  0.1977  36  36  
svm/KruskalWallis  0.1081  0.1628  62  62  
svm/InformationGain  0.1456  0.186  54  54  
svm/χ2 statistic  0.1561  0.186  127  127  
svm  0.1611  0.1977  137  137  
kNN/FMS  0.1279  0.2393  20  130  k = 1 
kNN/mRMR  0.2532  0.3372  54  54  k = 1 
kNN/KruskalWallis  0.1861  0.3343  25  25  k = 4 
kNN/InformationGain  0.2248  0.3256  107  107  k = 1 
kNN/χ2 statistic  0.336  0.4535  107  107  k = 1 
kNN  0.346  0.4419  137  137  k = 1 
FMS algorithm was also tested on 16S rRNAs' profiles form dental decay patients. These samples were collected from saliva and dental plaques separately. For the expression level of 16S rRNAs collected from dental plaques samples, the training data contains 23 dental decay patient samples and 20 normal samples and the test data contains 9 dental decay patient samples and 8 normal samples. For the expression level of 16S rRNAs collected from saliva samples, the training data contains 23 dental decay patient samples and 19 normal samples and the test data contains 10 dental decay patient samples and 8 normal samples. As these dental decay datasets are noisy, mutual information method was used for feature deletion instead of Fisher statistic method. When treating with the noisy data, the data showed that FMS also performed better than mRMR method [20] and KruskalWallis test method [23] (Additional file 1 Table 2, 3).
Conclusions
In this work, we introduced FMS algorithm to address the high level sparsity and redundancy problem of 16S rRNA genes microbial surveys, thereby identifying combinations of 16S rRNA genes that give the best discrimination of sample groups. FMS method has several distinct advantages and features that make it useful to researchers: 1) FMS reduces feature dimension with higher accuracy and preserves the relationship between different features as well, thus improve the intelligibility of the result. 2) FMS processes features into sets of combinations and performs more efficiently and meaningfully in distinguishing among classifications than the individual features, which is in line with the observation that particular combinations of specific bacteria are associated with individual symptoms and signs [30]. 3) FMS uses combined features on classification performance, which may compensate for the influence of individual features, thus provides more robust classification with higher accuracy and less variation. 4) Different from LDA, FMS classifies features into combinations, features of different combinations were not overlapping and the relationship between features were well preserved.
In conclusion, we developed a new feature merging and selection algorithm to deal with 16S rRNAs expression data in order to reduce feature dimensionality and retain enough important features. The improved method reserves some advantages of both LDA and other feature selection methods, and reduces dimensions much more effectively. As the classification examples showed, the FMS algorithm reduced dimensionality of the data effectively without losing important features, which made results more intelligible. FMS performed well and will be useful in human microbiome projects for identifying biomarkers for disease or other physiological conditions.
Data and method
Data
We got the 16S rRNAs' expression profiles of pneumonia patients from Zhou et al., [3], and 16S rRNAs' expression profiles of dental decay patients from Ling et al, .[4]. The set of 16S rRNAs' sequences, which were used for constructing the phylogenetic trees, were downloaded from NCBI website (ID: GU737566 to GU737625, and HQ914698 to HQ914775) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). After removing redundant sequences, a total of 90 microbe species were used for phylogenetic analysis.
Linear Discriminant Analysis
Linear Discriminant Analysis(LDA) is a typical variable transformation method to reduce dimensions [31]. The key of LDA is to maximize the Rayleigh quotient: $\text{J}\left(\text{W}\right)=\frac{{\alpha}^{T}{S}_{B}\alpha}{{\alpha}^{T}{S}_{W}\alpha}$, where ${S}_{B}={\displaystyle \sum _{k}}\left({n}_{k}1\right)\sum \left({m}_{k}\text{m}\right){\left({m}_{k}\text{m}\right)}^{\prime}/\left(K1\right)$, is the "between classes scatter matrix", and ${S}_{W}={\displaystyle \sum _{k}^{K}}\left(y{m}_{k}\right){\left(y{m}_{k}\right)}^{\prime}/\left(\text{N}\text{K}\right)$, is the "within classes scatter matrix". K is the number of classes, and n_{ k } is the number of the samples within the kth class. m_{ k } is the mean value of the sample within the kth class, and m is the mean value of all the samples.
LDA method can find a direction which maximizes the projected class means and while minimizing the classes variance in this direction. To avoid S_{ W } become singular matrix, we added unit matrix with small weights to S_{ W } in each loop until S_{ W } became nonsingular. The program can be downloaded from http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/29673ldalineardiscriminantanalysis/content/LDA.m
Support vector machine algorithm
Support vector machine (SVM) algorithm is one of the most popular supervised learning method basing on the concept of maximal margin hyperplane [32]. The hyperplane separates training samples with 2 different labels, from which both positive and negative categories have the largest distances. Multiclass problem will be transformed into binary class problem such as oneagainstone or oneagainstall. Kernels approach will be used to construct nonlinear decision boundary if the data is not linearly separable. We used Radial Basis Function kernel as follows: $K\left({x}_{i},{x}_{j}\right)={e}^{\left\right{x}_{i}{x}_{j}{}^{2}/c}$, where c > 0, c is a scalar.
knearest neighbor algorithm
knearest neighbor algorithm (kNN) is a nonparametric method of supervised classification, basing on distance function d(x_{ q } , x_{ i } ), such as Euclidean distance. The original data was preprocessed so that the values of each feature in the data have zero mean and unit variance [33]. The distances of k nearest neighbors were weighted and labeled to refine the model, the improved kNN algorithm is depicted as: $F\left({x}_{q}\right)={\displaystyle \underset{v\in V}{\text{arg}\text{max}}}{\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{k}}{w}_{i}\delta \left(v,f\left({x}_{i}\right)\right)$, where ${w}_{i}=\frac{1}{d{\left({x}_{q},{x}_{i}\right)}^{2}}$; f(x_{ i } ) is the label of the i th sample; and δ(a,b) = 1 when a = b, otherwise δ(a,b) = 0. F(x_{ q } ) was assigned to f(x_{ i } ) when the distance between x_{ q } and x_{ i } become zero [34]. Cross validation method were used to determine the k values.
k means clustering method
k means clustering is an unsupervised classification method for finding clusters and cluster centers. The method works in three steps: (1) Select the first kth samples as the seed mean; (2) Classify samples according to the nearest mean value; (3) End the loop when there is no change in the mean values. We used Euclidean distance as distance function. The program can be downloaded from http://people.revoledu.com/kardi/tutorial/kMean/matlab_kMeans.htm. Each feature was standardized to mean 0 and variance 1 in the training before the performance of k means clustering [33].
Mutual information
Mutual information measures the mutual dependence between two variables based on information theory. The mutual information of two continuous variables × and Y is defined as: $\text{I(x,y)}=\int \int \text{p(x,y)}\text{log}\frac{\text{p(x,y)}}{\text{p(x)p(y)}}dxdy$, Where p(x) and p(y) are the frequencies of appearances, and p(x, y) is the joint probabilistic density.
In case of discrete variables, mutual information is defined as: $I\left(X;Y\right)={\displaystyle \sum _{y\in Y}}{\displaystyle \sum _{x\in X}}p\left(x,y\right)\text{log}\left(\frac{p\left(x,y\right)}{p\left(x\right)p\left(y\right)}\right)$.
We sorted the mean values of each feature class, computed average values of each adjacent values, and discretized each features according to the average values, then calculated the mutual information. Datasets with mutual information below 0.03 threshold were considered as noisy data, thus mutual information method was used instead of Fisher statistic method at feature deletion step.
To measure classification ability on noisy data, we discretized features according to median value of classes for each feature, then compute mutual information.
Minimum Redundancy Maximum Relevance
Minimum Redundancy Maximum Relevance (mRMR) method is widely used for feature selection such as gene selection [35]. The Maximum Relevance is defined as: $\underset{S}{\text{max}}}\frac{1}{\leftS\right}{\displaystyle \sum _{{g}_{i}\in S}^{}}I\left({g}_{i};c\right)$, Where I(x, y) is mutual information of two variables × and y, S is the selected vector set, g is a feature of S, and c is the class label.
The Minimum Redundancy is defined as: $\underset{S}{\text{min}}\frac{1}{S{}^{2}}{\displaystyle \sum _{{g}_{i},{g}_{j}\in S}^{}}I\left({g}_{i};{g}_{j}\right)$.
The mRMR feature set is obtained by optimizing the Maximum Relevance and Minimum Redundancy simultaneously. Optimization of both conditions requires combining them into a single criterion function. In this paper, the mth feature was selected according to the value of Maximum Relevance divided by Minimum Redundancy [20]: $\underset{{g}_{i}\in G{S}_{m1}}{\text{max}}\frac{I\left({g}_{i};c\right)}{\frac{1}{m1}{\displaystyle \sum _{{g}_{i}\in {S}_{m1}}^{}}I\left({g}_{i};{g}_{j}\right)}$.
mRMR method need to discrete training data before running, so considering sparse discrete of the data, we assign 1 for features with expression information and 0 for features without expression. The mRMR program can be downloaded from web site: http://penglab.janelia.org/proj/mRMR/
KruskalWallis test
KruskalWallis test is a nonparametric method for testing whether samples originate from the same distribution [23]. The test assumes that all samples from the same group have the same continuous distribution, and they are mutually independent. In this study, KruskalWallist test was used to rank features. The program can be downloaded from http://featureselection.asu.edu/algorithms/fs_sup_kruskalwallis.zip.
Information Gain
Information Gain measures the classification ability of each feature with respect to the relevance with the output class, which is defined as Information Gain = H(S)H(Sx) [27], $\text{H}\left(\text{S}\right)={\displaystyle \sum _{s\in S}}p\left(s\right){\text{log}}_{2}\left(p\left(s\right)\right)$, $H\left(S\text{x}\right)={\displaystyle \sum _{x\in X}}p\left(x\right){\displaystyle \sum _{s\in S}}p\left(sx\right){\text{log}}_{2}\left(p\left(sx\right)\right)$, where S and × are features. When measuring the mutual relation between the extracted features and the class, Information Gain is also known as mutual information [21]. We assigned 1 to features with expression information and 0 to features without expression, and ranked the Information Gain values; the larger the value, the more important is the feature.
χ^{2} statistic
The Chisquared (χ^{2}) statistic uses theχ^{2} statistic to discretize numeric attributes and achieves feature selection via discretization [22]. Theχ^{2} value is defined as ${\chi}^{2}\text{=}{\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{c}}{\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{k}}\frac{{\left({A}_{ij}{E}_{ij}\right)}^{2}}{{E}_{ij}}$, where c is the number of intervals, k is the number of classes, A_{ ij } is the number of samples in the i th interval and the j th class, M_{ i } is the number of samples in the i th interval, B_{ j } is the number of samples in the j th class, N is the total number of samples, and ${E}_{ij}=\frac{{M}_{i}{B}_{j}}{N}$. We assigned 1 for features with expression information and 0 for features without expression, and sorted theχ^{2} statistic values, the lager the value, the more important is the feature.
Abbreviations
 FMS:

Feature Merging and Selection algorithm
 PCA:

Principal Component Analysis
 LDA:

Linear Discriminant Analysis
 HAP:

hospitalacquired pneumonia
 CAP:

communityacquired pneumonia
 kNN:

Knearest neighbor algorithm
 SVM:

Support vector machine
 mRMR:

Minimum Redundancy Maximum Relevance.
Declarations
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National '973' Basic Research Program (2010CB529200, 2011CB910204, 2011CB510100, 2010CB529206, 2010CB912702), Research Program of CAS (KSCX2EWR04, KSCX2YWR190, 2011KIP204), National Natural Science Foundation of China (30900272, 31070752), Chinese Ministry for Science and Technology Grant 2008BAI64B01, Chinese HighTech R&D Program (863) (2009AA02Z304, 2009AA022710), and Shanghai Committee of Science and Technology (09ZR1423000).
This article has been published as part of BMC Systems Biology Volume 6 Supplement 3, 2012: Proceedings of The International Conference on Intelligent Biology and Medicine (ICIBM)  Systems Biology. The full contents of the supplement are available online at http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcsystbiol/supplements/6/S3.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 VijayKumar M, Aitken JD, Carvalho FA, Cullender TC, Mwangi S, Srinivasan S, Sitaraman SV, Knight R, Ley RE, Gewirtz AT: Metabolic syndrome and altered gut microbiota in mice lacking Tolllike receptor 5. Science. 2010, 328: 228231. 10.1126/science.1179721.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Sokol H, Pigneur B, Watterlot L, Lakhdari O, BermudezHumaran LG, Gratadoux JJ, Blugeon S, Bridonneau C, Furet JP, Corthier G, et al: Faecalibacterium prausnitzii is an antiinflammatory commensal bacterium identified by gut microbiota analysis of Crohn disease patients. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008, 105: 1673116736. 10.1073/pnas.0804812105.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Zhou Y, Lin P, Li Q, Han L, Zheng H, Wei Y, Cui Z, Ni Y, Guo X: Analysis of the microbiota of sputum samples from patients with lower respiratory tract infections. Acta Biochim Biophys Sin (Shanghai). 2010, 42: 754761. 10.1093/abbs/gmq081.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Ling Z, Kong J, Jia P, Wei C, Wang Y, Pan Z, Huang W, Li L, Chen H, Xiang C: Analysis of oral microbiota in children with dental caries by PCRDGGE and barcoded pyrosequencing. Microb Ecol. 2010, 60: 677690. 10.1007/s0024801097128.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Gao Z, PerezPerez GI, Chen Y, Blaser MJ: Quantitation of major human cutaneous bacterial and fungal populations. J Clin Microbiol. 2010, 48: 35753581. 10.1128/JCM.0059710.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Bik EM, Eckburg PB, Gill SR, Nelson KE, Purdom EA, Francois F, PerezPerez G, Blaser MJ, Relman DA: Molecular analysis of the bacterial microbiota in the human stomach. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006, 103: 732737. 10.1073/pnas.0506655103.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Liu Y, Zhang C, Zhao L, Nardini C: Adapting functional genomic tools to metagenomic analyses: investigating the role of gut bacteria in relation to obesity. Brief Funct Genomics. 2010, 9: 355361. 10.1093/bfgp/elq011.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Knights D, Costello EK, Knight R: Supervised classification of human microbiota. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2011, 35: 343359. 10.1111/j.15746976.2010.00251.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Rani A, Sharma A, Rajagopal R, Adak T, Bhatnagar RK: Bacterial diversity analysis of larvae and adult midgut microflora using culturedependent and cultureindependent methods in labreared and fieldcollected Anopheles stephensian Asian malarial vector. BMC Microbiol. 2009, 9: 9610.1186/14712180996.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Lee JW, Lee JB, Park M, Song SH: An extensive comparison of recent classification tools applied to microarray data. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis. 2005, 48: 869885. 10.1016/j.csda.2004.03.017.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Dudoit S, Fridlyand J, Speed TP: Comparison of Discrimination Methods for the Classification of Tumors Using Gene Expression Data. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 2002, 97: 7787. 10.1198/016214502753479248.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Tang KL, Li TH, Xiong WW, Chen K: Ovarian cancer classification based on dimensionality reduction for SELDITOF data. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010, 11: 10910.1186/1471210511109.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Isabelle Guyon AE: An Introduction to Variable and Feature Selection. J Mach Learn Res. 2003, 3: 11571182.Google Scholar
 Jing XY, Zhang D, Tang YY: An improved LDA approach. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern B Cybern. 2004, 34: 19421951. 10.1109/TSMCB.2004.831770.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Li M, Wang B, Zhang M, Rantalainen M, Wang S, Zhou H, Zhang Y, Shen J, Pang X, Wei H, et al: Symbiotic gut microbes modulate human metabolic phenotypes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008, 105: 21172122. 10.1073/pnas.0712038105.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Wen L, Ley RE, Volchkov PY, Stranges PB, Avanesyan L, Stonebraker AC, Hu C, Wong FS, Szot GL, Bluestone JA, et al: Innate immunity and intestinal microbiota in the development of Type 1 diabetes. Nature. 2008, 455: 11091113. 10.1038/nature07336.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Grice EA, Kong HH, Conlan S, Deming CB, Davis J, Young AC, Bouffard GG, Blakesley RW, Murray PR, Green ED, et al: Topographical and temporal diversity of the human skin microbiome. Science. 2009, 324: 11901192. 10.1126/science.1171700.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Trevor Hastie RT, Jerome Firedman: The Elements of Statistical Learning Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction. 2009, 223249.Google Scholar
 Tom Mitchell MH: Machine Learning. McGrawHill. 1997, 6566.Google Scholar
 Ding C, Peng H: Minimum redundancy feature selection from microarray gene expression data. J Bioinform Comput Biol. 2005, 3: 185205. 10.1142/S0219720005001004.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Quinlan JR: C4. 5: Programs for Machine Learning. 1993Google Scholar
 Huan Liu RS: Chi2: Feature Selection and Discretization of Numeric Attributes. 1995Google Scholar
 Wei LJ: Asymptotic Conservativeness and Efficiency of KruskalWallis Test for K Dependent Samples. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1981, 10061009.Google Scholar
 Philip K, Chan SJS: Toward scalable learning with nonuniform class and cost distributions: A case study in credit card fraud detection. AAAI Press. 1998, 164168.Google Scholar
 Pazzani M, Merz C, Murphy P, Ali K, Hume T, Brunk C: Reducing Misclassification Costs. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of Machine Learning, New Brunswick Morgan Kaufmann. 1994, 217225.Google Scholar
 Zheng G, Qian Z, Yang Q, Wei C, Xie L, Zhu Y, Li Y: The combination approach of SVM and ECOC for powerful identification and classification of transcription factor. BMC Bioinformatics. 2008, 9: 28210.1186/147121059282.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Thomas M, Cover JAT: Elements of Information Theory. 1991Google Scholar
 Kawanami T, Fukuda K, Yatera K, Kido T, Yoshii C, Taniguchi H, Kido M: Severe pneumonia with Leptotrichia sp. detected predominantly in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid by use of 16S rRNA gene sequencing analysis. J Clin Microbiol. 2009, 47: 496498. 10.1128/JCM.0142908.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Koide M, Furugen M, Haranaga S, Higa F, Tateyama M, Yamane N, Fujita J: Characteristics of Legionella pneumophila serogroup 2 strains by colony morphology. Jpn J Infect Dis. 2008, 61: 487489.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Franks AH, Harmsen HJ, Raangs GC, Jansen GJ, Schut F, Welling GW: Variations of bacterial populations in human feces measured by fluorescent in situ hybridization with groupspecific 16S rRNAtargeted oligonucleotide probes. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1998, 64: 33363345.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
 Richard O, Duda PEH, Stork David: Pattern Classification. . 2000, Published by WileyInterscience, 4451. Chapter 4, 2Google Scholar
 Furey TS, Cristianini N, Duffy N, Bednarski DW, Schummer M, Haussler D: Support vector machine classification and validation of cancer tissue samples using microarray expression data. Bioinformatics. 2000, 16: 906914. 10.1093/bioinformatics/16.10.906.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Trevor Hastie RT, Firedman Jerome: The Elements of Statistical Learning Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction. 2009, 459475.Google Scholar
 Tom Mitchell MH: Machine Learning. 1997, 233234.Google Scholar
 Peng H, Long F, Ding C: Feature selection based on mutual information: criteria of maxdependency, maxrelevance, and minredundancy. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 2005, 27: 12261238.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.