BACKGROUND: The comparability of gene expression data generated with different microarray platforms is still a matter of concern. Here we address the performance and the overlap in the detection of differentially expressed genes for five different microarray platforms in a challenging biological context where differences in gene expression are few and subtle. RESULTS: Gene expression profiles in the hippocampus of five wild-type and five transgenic deltaC-doublecortin-like kinase mice were evaluated with five microarray platforms: Applied Biosystems, Affymetrix, Agilent, Illumina, LGTC home-spotted arrays. Using a fixed false discovery rate of 10% we detected surprising differences between the number of differentially expressed genes per platform. Four genes were selected by ABI, 130 by Affymetrix, 3,051 by Agilent, 54 by Illumina, and 13 by LGTC. Two genes were found significantly differentially expressed by all platforms and the four genes identified by the ABI platform were found by at least three other platforms. Quantitative RT-PCR analysis confirmed 20 out of 28 of the genes detected by two or more platforms and 8 out of 15 of the genes detected by Agilent only. We observed improved correlations between platforms when ranking the genes based on the significance level than with a fixed statistical cut-off. We demonstrate significant overlap in the affected gene sets identified by the different platforms, although biological processes were represented by only partially overlapping sets of genes. Aberrances in GABA-ergic signalling in the transgenic mice were consistently found by all platforms. CONCLUSION: The different microarray platforms give partially complementary views on biological processes affected. Our data indicate that when analyzing samples with only subtle differences in gene expression the use of two different platforms might be more attractive than increasing the number of replicates. Commercial two-color platforms seem to have higher power for finding differentially expressed genes between groups with small differences in expression.
BACKGROUND: The comparability of gene expression data generated with different microarray platforms is still a matter of concern. Here we address the performance and the overlap in the detection of differentially expressed genes for five different microarray platforms in a challenging biological context where differences in gene expression are few and subtle. RESULTS: Gene expression profiles in the hippocampus of five wild-type and five transgenicdeltaC-doublecortin-like kinasemice were evaluated with five microarray platforms: Applied Biosystems, Affymetrix, Agilent, Illumina, LGTC home-spotted arrays. Using a fixed false discovery rate of 10% we detected surprising differences between the number of differentially expressed genes per platform. Four genes were selected by ABI, 130 by Affymetrix, 3,051 by Agilent, 54 by Illumina, and 13 by LGTC. Two genes were found significantly differentially expressed by all platforms and the four genes identified by the ABI platform were found by at least three other platforms. Quantitative RT-PCR analysis confirmed 20 out of 28 of the genes detected by two or more platforms and 8 out of 15 of the genes detected by Agilent only. We observed improved correlations between platforms when ranking the genes based on the significance level than with a fixed statistical cut-off. We demonstrate significant overlap in the affected gene sets identified by the different platforms, although biological processes were represented by only partially overlapping sets of genes. Aberrances in GABA-ergic signalling in the transgenic mice were consistently found by all platforms. CONCLUSION: The different microarray platforms give partially complementary views on biological processes affected. Our data indicate that when analyzing samples with only subtle differences in gene expression the use of two different platforms might be more attractive than increasing the number of replicates. Commercial two-color platforms seem to have higher power for finding differentially expressed genes between groups with small differences in expression.
Authors: Paul K Tan; Thomas J Downey; Edward L Spitznagel; Pin Xu; Dadin Fu; Dimiter S Dimitrov; Richard A Lempicki; Bruce M Raaka; Margaret C Cam Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2003-10-01 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Robert C Gentleman; Vincent J Carey; Douglas M Bates; Ben Bolstad; Marcel Dettling; Sandrine Dudoit; Byron Ellis; Laurent Gautier; Yongchao Ge; Jeff Gentry; Kurt Hornik; Torsten Hothorn; Wolfgang Huber; Stefano Iacus; Rafael Irizarry; Friedrich Leisch; Cheng Li; Martin Maechler; Anthony J Rossini; Gunther Sawitzki; Colin Smith; Gordon Smyth; Luke Tierney; Jean Y H Yang; Jianhua Zhang Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2004-09-15 Impact factor: 13.583
Authors: Xiaomin Chen; Benjamin D Sullivan; Raheleh Rahimi Darabad; Shaohui Liu; Wendy R Kam; David A Sullivan Journal: Cornea Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 2.651
Authors: Raheleh Rahimi Darabad; Tomo Suzuki; Stephen M Richards; Roderick V Jensen; Frederick A Jakobiec; Fouad R Zakka; Shaohui Liu; David A Sullivan Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2013-02-05 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Courtney C Babbitt; Olivier Fedrigo; Adam D Pfefferle; Alan P Boyle; Julie E Horvath; Terrence S Furey; Gregory A Wray Journal: Genome Biol Evol Date: 2010-01-18 Impact factor: 3.416
Authors: Rose Du; Kelan Tantisira; Vincent Carey; Soumyaroop Bhattacharya; Stephanie Metje; Alvin T Kho; Barbara J Klanderman; Roger Gaedigk; Ross Lazarus; Thomas J Mariani; J Steven Leeder; Scott T Weiss Journal: BMC Bioinformatics Date: 2009-06-19 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: M van Iterson; P A C 't Hoen; P Pedotti; G J E J Hooiveld; J T den Dunnen; G J B van Ommen; J M Boer; R X Menezes Journal: BMC Genomics Date: 2009-09-17 Impact factor: 3.969