Jochen Jaeger1, Rainer Spang. 1. Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics, Ihnestrasse 73, 14195 Berlin, Germany. jaeger@molgen.mpg.de
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Normalization of gene expression microarrays carrying thousands of genes is based on assumptions that do not hold for diagnostic microarrays carrying only few genes. Thus, applying standard microarray normalization strategies to diagnostic microarrays causes new normalization problems. RESULTS: In this paper we point out the differences of normalizing large microarrays and small diagnostic microarrays. We suggest to include additional normalization genes on the small diagnostic microarrays and propose two strategies for selecting them from genomewide microarray studies. The first is a data driven univariate selection of normalization genes. The second is multivariate and based on finding a balanced diagnostic signature. Finally, we compare both methods to standard normalization protocols known from large microarrays. CONCLUSION: Not including additional genes for normalization on small microarrays leads to a loss of diagnostic information. Using house keeping genes from the literature for normalization fails to work for certain datasets. While a data driven selection of additional normalization genes works well, the best results were obtained using a balanced signature.
BACKGROUND: Normalization of gene expression microarrays carrying thousands of genes is based on assumptions that do not hold for diagnostic microarrays carrying only few genes. Thus, applying standard microarray normalization strategies to diagnostic microarrays causes new normalization problems. RESULTS: In this paper we point out the differences of normalizing large microarrays and small diagnostic microarrays. We suggest to include additional normalization genes on the small diagnostic microarrays and propose two strategies for selecting them from genomewide microarray studies. The first is a data driven univariate selection of normalization genes. The second is multivariate and based on finding a balanced diagnostic signature. Finally, we compare both methods to standard normalization protocols known from large microarrays. CONCLUSION: Not including additional genes for normalization on small microarrays leads to a loss of diagnostic information. Using house keeping genes from the literature for normalization fails to work for certain datasets. While a data driven selection of additional normalization genes works well, the best results were obtained using a balanced signature.
Authors: Laura J van 't Veer; Hongyue Dai; Marc J van de Vijver; Yudong D He; Augustinus A M Hart; Mao Mao; Hans L Peterse; Karin van der Kooy; Matthew J Marton; Anke T Witteveen; George J Schreiber; Ron M Kerkhoven; Chris Roberts; Peter S Linsley; René Bernards; Stephen H Friend Journal: Nature Date: 2002-01-31 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Tanja Pascale Neuvians; Isabella Gashaw; Christian Georg Sauer; Christian von Ostau; Sabine Kliesch; Martin Bergmann; Axel Häcker; Rainer Grobholz Journal: J Biotechnol Date: 2005-05-04 Impact factor: 3.307
Authors: Howard Y Chang; Dimitry S A Nuyten; Julie B Sneddon; Trevor Hastie; Robert Tibshirani; Therese Sørlie; Hongyue Dai; Yudong D He; Laura J van't Veer; Harry Bartelink; Matt van de Rijn; Patrick O Brown; Marc J van de Vijver Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-02-08 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Jacques Lapointe; Chunde Li; John P Higgins; Matt van de Rijn; Eric Bair; Kelli Montgomery; Michelle Ferrari; Lars Egevad; Walter Rayford; Ulf Bergerheim; Peter Ekman; Angelo M DeMarzo; Robert Tibshirani; David Botstein; Patrick O Brown; James D Brooks; Jonathan R Pollack Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2004-01-07 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Ruidong Xiang; Jody McNally; Jude Bond; David Tucker; Margaret Cameron; Alistair J Donaldson; Katie L Austin; Suzanne Rowe; Arjan Jonker; Cesar S Pinares-Patino; John C McEwan; Phil E Vercoe; V H Oddy; Brian P Dalrymple Journal: Front Genet Date: 2018-08-20 Impact factor: 4.599