Literature DB >> 15117752

Interactively optimizing signal-to-noise ratios in expression profiling: project-specific algorithm selection and detection p-value weighting in Affymetrix microarrays.

Jinwook Seo1, Marina Bakay, Yi-Wen Chen, Sara Hilmer, Ben Shneiderman, Eric P Hoffman.   

Abstract

MOTIVATION: The most commonly utilized microarrays for mRNA profiling (Affymetrix) include 'probe sets' of a series of perfect match and mismatch probes (typically 22 oligonucleotides per probe set). There are an increasing number of reported 'probe set algorithms' that differ in their interpretation of a probe set to derive a single normalized 'signal' representative of expression of each mRNA. These algorithms are known to differ in accuracy and sensitivity, and optimization has been done using a small set of standardized control microarray data. We hypothesized that different mRNA profiling projects have varying sources and degrees of confounding noise, and that these should alter the choice of a specific probe set algorithm. Also, we hypothesized that use of the Microarray Suite (MAS) 5.0 probe set detection p-value as a weighting function would improve the performance of all probe set algorithms.
RESULTS: We built an interactive visual analysis software tool (HCE2W) to test and define parameters in Affymetrix analyses that optimize the ratio of signal (desired biological variable) versus noise (confounding uncontrolled variables). Five probe set algorithms were studied with and without statistical weighting of probe sets using the MAS 5.0 probe set detection p-values. The signal-to-noise ratio optimization method was tested in two large novel microarray datasets with different levels of confounding noise, a 105 sample U133A human muscle biopsy dataset (11 groups: mutation-defined, extensive noise), and a 40 sample U74A inbred mouse lung dataset (8 groups: little noise). Performance was measured by the ability of the specific probe set algorithm, with and without detection p-value weighting, to cluster samples into the appropriate biological groups (unsupervised agglomerative clustering with F-measure values). Of the total random sampling analyses, 50% showed a highly statistically significant difference between probe set algorithms by ANOVA [F(4,10) > 14, p < 0.0001], with weighting by MAS 5.0 detection p-value showing significance in the mouse data by ANOVA [F(1,10) > 9, p < 0.013] and paired t-test [t(9) = -3.675, p = 0.005]. Probe set detection p-value weighting had the greatest positive effect on performance of dChip difference model, ProbeProfiler and RMA algorithms. Importantly, probe set algorithms did indeed perform differently depending on the specific project, most probably due to the degree of confounding noise. Our data indicate that significantly improved data analysis of mRNA profile projects can be achieved by optimizing the choice of probe set algorithm with the noise levels intrinsic to a project, with dChip difference model with MAS 5.0 detection p-value continuous weighting showing the best overall performance in both projects. Furthermore, both existing and newly developed probe set algorithms should incorporate a detection p-value weighting to improve performance. AVAILABILITY: The Hierarchical Clustering Explorer 2.0 is available at http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/hce/ Murine arrays (40 samples) are publicly available at the PEPR resource (http://microarray.cnmcresearch.org/pgadatatable.asp http://pepr.cnmcresearch.org Chen et al., 2004).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15117752     DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bth280

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bioinformatics        ISSN: 1367-4803            Impact factor:   6.937


  47 in total

1.  The genomic response of skeletal muscle to methylprednisolone using microarrays: tailoring data mining to the structure of the pharmacogenomic time series.

Authors:  Richard R Almon; Debra C DuBois; William H Piel; William J Jusko
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 2.533

2.  A statistical framework for Illumina DNA methylation arrays.

Authors:  Pei Fen Kuan; Sijian Wang; Xin Zhou; Haitao Chu
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2010-09-29       Impact factor: 6.937

3.  Energetic consequences of nitrite stress in Desulfovibrio vulgaris Hildenborough, inferred from global transcriptional analysis.

Authors:  Qiang He; Katherine H Huang; Zhili He; Eric J Alm; Matthew W Fields; Terry C Hazen; Adam P Arkin; Judy D Wall; Jizhong Zhou
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 4.792

4.  Temporal profiling of the transcriptional basis for the development of corticosteroid-induced insulin resistance in rat muscle.

Authors:  Richard R Almon; Debra C Dubois; Jin Y Jin; William J Jusko
Journal:  J Endocrinol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 4.286

5.  The ABRF MARG microarray survey 2005: taking the pulse of the microarray field.

Authors:  Kevin L Knudtson; Herbert Auer; Andrew I Brooks; Chandi Griffin; George Grills; Susan Hester; Gregory Khitrov; Kathryn S Lilley; Aldo Massimi; Jay P Tiesman; Agnes Viale
Journal:  J Biomol Tech       Date:  2006-04

Review 6.  Understanding genomics: implications for the emergency medicine physician and the treatment of asthma.

Authors:  Robert J Freishtat; Stephen J Teach
Journal:  Pediatr Emerg Care       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 1.454

Review 7.  Detection call algorithms for high-throughput gene expression microarray data.

Authors:  Kellie J Archer; Sarah E Reese
Journal:  Brief Bioinform       Date:  2009-11-25       Impact factor: 11.622

8.  Metabolite signatures of exercise training in human skeletal muscle relate to mitochondrial remodelling and cardiometabolic fitness.

Authors:  Kim M Huffman; Timothy R Koves; Monica J Hubal; Hiba Abouassi; Nina Beri; Lori A Bateman; Robert D Stevens; Olga R Ilkayeva; Eric P Hoffman; Deborah M Muoio; William E Kraus
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2014-08-05       Impact factor: 10.122

9.  Rank of correlation coefficient as a comparable measure for biological significance of gene coexpression.

Authors:  Takeshi Obayashi; Kengo Kinoshita
Journal:  DNA Res       Date:  2009-09-18       Impact factor: 4.458

10.  Comparative gene expression profiles between heterotic and non-heterotic hybrids of tetraploid Medicago sativa.

Authors:  Xuehui Li; Yanling Wei; Dan Nettleton; E Charles Brummer
Journal:  BMC Plant Biol       Date:  2009-08-13       Impact factor: 4.215

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.