| Literature DB >> 19828070 |
Luca Corradi1, Valentina Mirisola, Ivan Porro, Livia Torterolo, Marco Fato, Paolo Romano, Ulrich Pfeffer.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Complex microarray gene expression datasets can be used for many independent analyses and are particularly interesting for the validation of potential biomarkers and multi-gene classifiers. This article presents a novel method to perform correlations between microarray gene expression data and clinico-pathological data through a combination of available and newly developed processing tools.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19828070 PMCID: PMC2762059 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-10-S12-S10
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Bioinformatics ISSN: 1471-2105 Impact factor: 3.169
Figure 1Workflow of the analysis. The sequence of the analysis steps performed is shown.
Figure 2Web portal screenshot 1. The user interface for entering input parameters and selecting analysis options. Users can browse and select data remotely or upload it from their machine.
Figure 3Web portal screenshot 2. The execution spooler of the portal. Both result files and execution status are visible.
Analysis execution times (using dChip for expression values computation)
| 50 microarrays | 24 min | 10 min | 5 min |
| 150 microarrays | 46 min | 29 min | 9 min |
| 400 microarrays | 85 min | 68 min | 22 min |
This table shows execution times related to the execution of the automated procedure by using a desktop PC, the web based service, the web based service with the parallel dChip using five parallel jobs. Execution on the desktop is carried on by an experienced operator on a system with all needed software already up and running. It includes intermediate manual operations and access to data stored locally on the PC.
Web execution times are calculated starting with the same operator already logged in to the service. Analysis is carried out on the same data, already available on the portal.
Analysis tools comparison
| 50 microarrays | √ | √ | X |
| 150 microarrays | √ | √ | X |
| 400 microarrays | √ | X | X |
This table shows the skill of dChip, RMA and GCRMA to execute the analysis based on increasing number of microarrays. GCRMA doesn't even allow to analyze 50 microarrays, while dChip succeeds in analyzing more than 400 microarrays.
Qualitative assessment of usability
| Ease of use | medium | good |
| Repeatability | poor | good |
| Accessibility | poor | good |
Qualitative comparison between traditional approach and the equivalent Web based service is based on the opinions given by the users involved in the evaluation process. Evaluation scale is based on three levels: poor, medium, good. The comparison shows a clearly better usability of the Survival Online tool.
Figure 4Survival analyses using gene lists. Gene lists were obtained from Gene Ontology categories as indicated. The "combined signature" contains the five most strongly relapse associated genes of the five other lists. Samples were divided into two classes based on the median values of the combined score of the multivariate model (black: good prognosis, red: poor prognosis).
Figure 5Survival analysis using a single gene. Expression values of the transcriptional regulator ID4 and of the matrix metalloprotease MMP1 were correlated with disease free survival. Samples were divided into two classes based on the median values respectively of ID4 and MMP1 expression (black: expression below the median value, red: above the median value).