A heterogeneous disease like cancer is activated through multiple pathways and different perturbations. Depending upon the activated pathway(s), patients’ survival vary significantly and show different efficacy to various drugs. Therefore, cancer subtype detection using genomics level data is a significant research problem. Subtype detection is often a complex problem, and in most cases, needs multi-omics data fusion to achieve accurate subtyping. Different data fusion and subtyping approaches have been proposed, such as kernel-based fusion, matrix factorization, and deep learning autoencoders. In this paper, we compared the performance of different deep learning autoencoders for cancer subtype detection. We performed cancer subtype detection on four different cancer types from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) datasets using four autoencoder implementations. We also predicted the optimal number of subtypes in a cancer type using the silhouette score. We observed that the detected subtypes exhibit significant differences in survival profiles. Furthermore, we also compared the effect of feature selection and similarity measures for subtype detection. To evaluate the results obtained, we selected the Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) dataset and identified the differentially expressed genes in each of the subtypes identified by the autoencoders; the obtained results coincide well with other genomic studies and can be corroborated with the involved pathways and biological functions. Thus, it shows that the results from the autoencoders, obtained through the interaction of different datatypes of cancer, can be used for the prediction and characterization of patient subgroups and survival profiles.

We compared the performance of matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization followed by a time of flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry and genomic DNA extraction followed by sequencing, assembly, and alignment for phylogenetic assessment (Genomics method). We collected the samples from four contaminated rivers in the Dominican Republic and analyzed MALDI-TOF efficacy and accuracy for identifying bacteria in the samples. We evaluated the results for both methods (MALDI-TOF and Genomics) and reported a similarity percentage between each method's results. The MALDI-TOF method had a 72.41\% of coincidence with the Genomics method. This could have been sequence contamination found in the Genomics method. When it was later filtered, the result's coincidence rate went up to 90\%.