Yang Xie1, Xinlei Wang, Michael Story. 1. Division of Biostatistics, Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA. yang.xie@utsouthwestern.edu
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Advances in technology have made different microarray platforms available. Among the many, Illumina BeadArrays are relatively new and have captured significant market share. With BeadArray technology, high data quality is generated from low sample input at reduced cost. However, the analysis methods for Illumina BeadArrays are far behind those for Affymetrix oligonucleotide arrays, and so need to be improved. RESULTS: In this article, we consider the problem of background correction for BeadArray data. One distinct feature of BeadArrays is that for each array, the noise is controlled by over 1000 bead types conjugated with non-specific oligonucleotide sequences. We extend the robust multi-array analysis (RMA) background correction model to incorporate the information from negative control beads, and consider three commonly used approaches for parameter estimation, namely, non-parametric, maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) and Bayesian estimation. The proposed approaches, as well as the existing background correction methods, are compared through simulation studies and a data example. We find that the maximum likelihood and Bayes methods seem to be the most promising. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
MOTIVATION: Advances in technology have made different microarray platforms available. Among the many, Illumina BeadArrays are relatively new and have captured significant market share. With BeadArray technology, high data quality is generated from low sample input at reduced cost. However, the analysis methods for Illumina BeadArrays are far behind those for Affymetrix oligonucleotide arrays, and so need to be improved. RESULTS: In this article, we consider the problem of background correction for BeadArray data. One distinct feature of BeadArrays is that for each array, the noise is controlled by over 1000 bead types conjugated with non-specific oligonucleotide sequences. We extend the robust multi-array analysis (RMA) background correction model to incorporate the information from negative control beads, and consider three commonly used approaches for parameter estimation, namely, non-parametric, maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) and Bayesian estimation. The proposed approaches, as well as the existing background correction methods, are compared through simulation studies and a data example. We find that the maximum likelihood and Bayes methods seem to be the most promising. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
Authors: Leming Shi; Laura H Reid; Wendell D Jones; Richard Shippy; Janet A Warrington; Shawn C Baker; Patrick J Collins; Francoise de Longueville; Ernest S Kawasaki; Kathleen Y Lee; Yuling Luo; Yongming Andrew Sun; James C Willey; Robert A Setterquist; Gavin M Fischer; Weida Tong; Yvonne P Dragan; David J Dix; Felix W Frueh; Frederico M Goodsaid; Damir Herman; Roderick V Jensen; Charles D Johnson; Edward K Lobenhofer; Raj K Puri; Uwe Schrf; Jean Thierry-Mieg; Charles Wang; Mike Wilson; Paul K Wolber; Lu Zhang; Shashi Amur; Wenjun Bao; Catalin C Barbacioru; Anne Bergstrom Lucas; Vincent Bertholet; Cecilie Boysen; Bud Bromley; Donna Brown; Alan Brunner; Roger Canales; Xiaoxi Megan Cao; Thomas A Cebula; James J Chen; Jing Cheng; Tzu-Ming Chu; Eugene Chudin; John Corson; J Christopher Corton; Lisa J Croner; Christopher Davies; Timothy S Davison; Glenda Delenstarr; Xutao Deng; David Dorris; Aron C Eklund; Xiao-hui Fan; Hong Fang; Stephanie Fulmer-Smentek; James C Fuscoe; Kathryn Gallagher; Weigong Ge; Lei Guo; Xu Guo; Janet Hager; Paul K Haje; Jing Han; Tao Han; Heather C Harbottle; Stephen C Harris; Eli Hatchwell; Craig A Hauser; Susan Hester; Huixiao Hong; Patrick Hurban; Scott A Jackson; Hanlee Ji; Charles R Knight; Winston P Kuo; J Eugene LeClerc; Shawn Levy; Quan-Zhen Li; Chunmei Liu; Ying Liu; Michael J Lombardi; Yunqing Ma; Scott R Magnuson; Botoul Maqsodi; Tim McDaniel; Nan Mei; Ola Myklebost; Baitang Ning; Natalia Novoradovskaya; Michael S Orr; Terry W Osborn; Adam Papallo; Tucker A Patterson; Roger G Perkins; Elizabeth H Peters; Ron Peterson; Kenneth L Philips; P Scott Pine; Lajos Pusztai; Feng Qian; Hongzu Ren; Mitch Rosen; Barry A Rosenzweig; Raymond R Samaha; Mark Schena; Gary P Schroth; Svetlana Shchegrova; Dave D Smith; Frank Staedtler; Zhenqiang Su; Hongmei Sun; Zoltan Szallasi; Zivana Tezak; Danielle Thierry-Mieg; Karol L Thompson; Irina Tikhonova; Yaron Turpaz; Beena Vallanat; Christophe Van; Stephen J Walker; Sue Jane Wang; Yonghong Wang; Russ Wolfinger; Alex Wong; Jie Wu; Chunlin Xiao; Qian Xie; Jun Xu; Wen Yang; Liang Zhang; Sheng Zhong; Yaping Zong; William Slikker Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: Matthew E Ritchie; Jeremy Silver; Alicia Oshlack; Melissa Holmes; Dileepa Diyagama; Andrew Holloway; Gordon K Smyth Journal: Bioinformatics Date: 2007-08-25 Impact factor: 6.937
Authors: Mark J Dunning; Nuno L Barbosa-Morais; Andy G Lynch; Simon Tavaré; Matthew E Ritchie Journal: BMC Bioinformatics Date: 2008-02-06 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Jeffrey D Allen; Siling Wang; Min Chen; Luc Girard; John D Minna; Yang Xie; Guanghua Xiao Journal: Brief Bioinform Date: 2011-12-23 Impact factor: 11.622
Authors: Jill M Westcott; Amanda M Prechtl; Erin A Maine; Tuyen T Dang; Matthew A Esparza; Han Sun; Yunyun Zhou; Yang Xie; Gray W Pearson Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2015-04-06 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Wei Shi; Ashish Banerjee; Matthew E Ritchie; Steve Gerondakis; Gordon K Smyth Journal: BMC Bioinformatics Date: 2009-11-11 Impact factor: 3.169