Literature DB >> 18561196

Quadratic form: a robust metric for quantitative comparison of flow cytometric histograms.

Tytus Bernas1, Elikplimi K Asem, J Paul Robinson, Bartek Rajwa.   

Abstract

Comparison of fluorescence distributions is a fundamental part of the analysis of flow cytometric data. This approach is applied to detect differences between control and test sample and thus analyze a biological response. Comparison of standard test samples over time provides an estimate of instrument stability for quality control. However, application of statistical methods of distribution comparison in flow cytometry is difficult owing to instrument noise and the complex shape of intensity distributions. We applied quadratic form (QF) as a mathematical metric for comparison of flow cytometry histograms. QF operates on histograms as vectors and calculates the total distance in an interbin manner using a matrix of distances between single histogram bins. Euclidean interbin distance and histograms normalized to unity were used. Critical values corresponding to 95% significance level were calculated using Monte-Carlo simulation and single-maximum Gaussian distributions populated with several numbers of events. The QF statistic was then validated for non-Gaussian single-maximum distributions and multiple-maxima distributions. We determined that the critical values for Gaussian distributions depended on standard deviations and number of events in the compared histograms. A simple empirical function was constructed to characterize this dependence. Furthermore, it was verified that critical values (corresponding to 95% significance) for non-Gaussian histograms were similar to values for the Gaussian histograms characterized by the same standard deviation. We applied the QF statistic to estimate the differences between histograms of DNA content (ploidy) in cells of old and young leaf tissue of Brassica campestris. Furthermore, we quantified differences in fluorescence intensity in immunostaining of human lymphocytes. Quadratic form (QF) provides a true (mathematical) metric for estimation of distance between flow cytometry histograms of arbitrary shape. QF can be applied as a statistical test for estimation of significance of the distance measure. The respective critical values depend only on the number of events and standard deviations of compared histograms and are not affected by distribution shape. Therefore, applications of QF do not require assumptions concerning distribution shape and can be easily implemented in practice. This notion was confirmed using empirical distributions of DNA content in plant tissue and distributions of immunofluorescence in human cells. (c) 2008 International Society for Advancement of Cytometry

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18561196     DOI: 10.1002/cyto.a.20586

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cytometry A        ISSN: 1552-4922            Impact factor:   4.355


  11 in total

1.  FAST: Rapid determinations of antibiotic susceptibility phenotypes using label-free cytometry.

Authors:  Tzu-Hsueh Huang; Yih-Ling Tzeng; Robert M Dickson
Journal:  Cytometry A       Date:  2018-05-07       Impact factor: 4.355

2.  Multi-site Study of Diffusion Metric Variability: Characterizing the Effects of Site, Vendor, Field Strength, and Echo Time using the Histogram Distance.

Authors:  K G Helmer; M-C Chou; R I Preciado; B Gimi; N K Rollins; A Song; J Turner; S Mori
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2016-03-29

3.  Computational Immune Monitoring Reveals Abnormal Double-Negative T Cells Present across Human Tumor Types.

Authors:  Allison R Greenplate; Daniel D McClanahan; Brian K Oberholtzer; Deon B Doxie; Caroline E Roe; Kirsten E Diggins; Nalin Leelatian; Megan L Rasmussen; Mark C Kelley; Vivian Gama; Peter J Siska; Jeffrey C Rathmell; P Brent Ferrell; Douglas B Johnson; Jonathan M Irish
Journal:  Cancer Immunol Res       Date:  2018-11-09       Impact factor: 11.151

4.  High-throughput secondary screening at the single-cell level.

Authors:  J Paul Robinson; Valery Patsekin; Cheryl Holdman; Kathy Ragheb; Jennifer Sturgis; Ray Fatig; Larisa V Avramova; Bartek Rajwa; V Jo Davisson; Nicole Lewis; Padma Narayanan; Nianyu Li; C W Qualls
Journal:  J Lab Autom       Date:  2012-09-10

5.  Relationship between DNA damage response, initiated by camptothecin or oxidative stress, and DNA replication, analyzed by quantitative 3D image analysis.

Authors:  K Berniak; P Rybak; T Bernas; M Zarębski; E Biela; H Zhao; Z Darzynkiewicz; J W Dobrucki
Journal:  Cytometry A       Date:  2013-07-11       Impact factor: 4.355

6.  A Chemogenomic Screening Platform Used to Identify Chemotypes Perturbing HSP90 Pathways.

Authors:  Fiona M Thomas; Kourtney M Goode; Bartek Rajwa; Andrew A Bieberich; Larisa V Avramova; Tony R Hazbun; V Jo Davisson
Journal:  SLAS Discov       Date:  2017-01-31       Impact factor: 3.341

7.  Rapid cytometric antibiotic susceptibility testing utilizing adaptive multidimensional statistical metrics.

Authors:  Tzu-Hsueh Huang; Xinghai Ning; Xiaojian Wang; Niren Murthy; Yih-Ling Tzeng; Robert M Dickson
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  2015-01-13       Impact factor: 6.986

8.  Characterization of Diffusion Metric Map Similarity in Data From a Clinical Data Repository Using Histogram Distances.

Authors:  Graham C Warner; Karl G Helmer
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2018-03-08       Impact factor: 4.677

9.  Earth Mover's Distance (EMD): A True Metric for Comparing Biomarker Expression Levels in Cell Populations.

Authors:  Darya Y Orlova; Noah Zimmerman; Stephen Meehan; Connor Meehan; Jeffrey Waters; Eliver E B Ghosn; Alexander Filatenkov; Gleb A Kolyagin; Yael Gernez; Shanel Tsuda; Wayne Moore; Richard B Moss; Leonore A Herzenberg; Guenther Walther
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-23       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  QFMatch: multidimensional flow and mass cytometry samples alignment.

Authors:  Darya Y Orlova; Stephen Meehan; David Parks; Wayne A Moore; Connor Meehan; Qian Zhao; Eliver E B Ghosn; Leonore A Herzenberg; Guenther Walther
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-02-19       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.