MOTIVATION: Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization (CGH) can reveal chromosomal aberrations in the genomic DNA. These amplifications and deletions at the DNA level are important in the pathogenesis of cancer and other diseases. While a large number of approaches have been proposed for analyzing the large array CGH datasets, the relative merits of these methods in practice are not clear. RESULTS: We compare 11 different algorithms for analyzing array CGH data. These include both segment detection methods and smoothing methods, based on diverse techniques such as mixture models, Hidden Markov Models, maximum likelihood, regression, wavelets and genetic algorithms. We compute the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves using simulated data to quantify sensitivity and specificity for various levels of signal-to-noise ratio and different sizes of abnormalities. We also characterize their performance on chromosomal regions of interest in a real dataset obtained from patients with Glioblastoma Multiforme. While comparisons of this type are difficult due to possibly sub-optimal choice of parameters in the methods, they nevertheless reveal general characteristics that are helpful to the biological investigator.
MOTIVATION: Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization (CGH) can reveal chromosomal aberrations in the genomic DNA. These amplifications and deletions at the DNA level are important in the pathogenesis of cancer and other diseases. While a large number of approaches have been proposed for analyzing the large array CGH datasets, the relative merits of these methods in practice are not clear. RESULTS: We compare 11 different algorithms for analyzing array CGH data. These include both segment detection methods and smoothing methods, based on diverse techniques such as mixture models, Hidden Markov Models, maximum likelihood, regression, wavelets and genetic algorithms. We compute the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves using simulated data to quantify sensitivity and specificity for various levels of signal-to-noise ratio and different sizes of abnormalities. We also characterize their performance on chromosomal regions of interest in a real dataset obtained from patients with Glioblastoma Multiforme. While comparisons of this type are difficult due to possibly sub-optimal choice of parameters in the methods, they nevertheless reveal general characteristics that are helpful to the biological investigator.
Authors: Raoul-Sam Daruwala; Archisman Rudra; Harry Ostrer; Robert Lucito; Michael Wigler; Bud Mishra Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2004-11-08 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: S Solinas-Toldo; S Lampel; S Stilgenbauer; J Nickolenko; A Benner; H Döhner; T Cremer; P Lichter Journal: Genes Chromosomes Cancer Date: 1997-12 Impact factor: 5.006
Authors: G Hodgson; J H Hager; S Volik; S Hariono; M Wernick; D Moore; N Nowak; D G Albertson; D Pinkel; C Collins; D Hanahan; J W Gray Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Markus Bredel; Claudia Bredel; Dejan Juric; Griffith R Harsh; Hannes Vogel; Lawrence D Recht; Branimir I Sikic Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2005-05-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Jonathan Sebat; B Lakshmi; Jennifer Troge; Joan Alexander; Janet Young; Pär Lundin; Susanne Månér; Hillary Massa; Megan Walker; Maoyen Chi; Nicholas Navin; Robert Lucito; John Healy; James Hicks; Kenny Ye; Andrew Reiner; T Conrad Gilliam; Barbara Trask; Nick Patterson; Anders Zetterberg; Michael Wigler Journal: Science Date: 2004-07-23 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Antoine M Snijders; Jane Fridlyand; Dorus A Mans; Richard Segraves; Ajay N Jain; Daniel Pinkel; Donna G Albertson Journal: Oncogene Date: 2003-07-10 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: D Pinkel; R Segraves; D Sudar; S Clark; I Poole; D Kowbel; C Collins; W L Kuo; C Chen; Y Zhai; S H Dairkee; B M Ljung; J W Gray; D G Albertson Journal: Nat Genet Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Ruibin Xi; Angela G Hadjipanayis; Lovelace J Luquette; Tae-Min Kim; Eunjung Lee; Jianhua Zhang; Mark D Johnson; Donna M Muzny; David A Wheeler; Richard A Gibbs; Raju Kucherlapati; Peter J Park Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2011-11-07 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Shu-Yi Su; Julian E Asher; Marjo-Riita Jarvelin; Phillipe Froguel; Alexandra I F Blakemore; David J Balding; Lachlan J M Coin Journal: Bioinformatics Date: 2010-04-20 Impact factor: 6.937
Authors: Derek M Bickhart; Yali Hou; Steven G Schroeder; Can Alkan; Maria Francesca Cardone; Lakshmi K Matukumalli; Jiuzhou Song; Robert D Schnabel; Mario Ventura; Jeremy F Taylor; Jose Fernando Garcia; Curtis P Van Tassell; Tad S Sonstegard; Evan E Eichler; George E Liu Journal: Genome Res Date: 2012-02-02 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Daniel A Peiffer; Jennie M Le; Frank J Steemers; Weihua Chang; Tony Jenniges; Francisco Garcia; Kirt Haden; Jiangzhen Li; Chad A Shaw; John Belmont; Sau Wai Cheung; Richard M Shen; David L Barker; Kevin L Gunderson Journal: Genome Res Date: 2006-08-09 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Martijs J Jonker; Wim C de Leeuw; Marino Marinković; Floyd R A Wittink; Han Rauwerda; Oskar Bruning; Wim A Ensink; Ad C Fluit; C H Boel; Mark de Jong; Timo M Breit Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2014-04-25 Impact factor: 16.971