| Literature DB >> 20193060 |
Yevhen Vainshtein1, Mayka Sanchez, Alvis Brazma, Matthias W Hentze, Thomas Dandekar, Martina U Muckenthaler.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gene expression studies greatly contribute to our understanding of complex relationships in gene regulatory networks. However, the complexity of array design, production and manipulations are limiting factors, affecting data quality. The use of customized DNA microarrays improves overall data quality in many situations, however, only if for these specifically designed microarrays analysis tools are available.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20193060 PMCID: PMC2838865 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-11-112
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Bioinformatics ISSN: 1471-2105 Impact factor: 3.169
Figure 1IronChip analysis work flow. (A) Flow chart of ICEP data processing and evaluation. Data evaluation with ICEP is organized into three functional modules: Single feature, EST and transcript evaluation. (B) In our application example, hybridized microarrays were scanned on a GenePix 4000B Microarray Scanner (Axon Instruments, Union City, CA, USA) and processed (feature background subtraction and normalization) by the ChipSkipper software [8]. ICEP uses these output files (generic tab-delimited text tables containing the normalized signal intensity and background data) for further analysis.
Figure 2ICEP run time chart. (A) Run time analysis of different microarray versions containing an increasing number of features. The plot shows the resulting increase in ICEP run time for different IronChip versions. (B) A set of virtual arrays of 1000 to 9000 features was analyzed. We used a general tab delimited format. Robust statistical analysis included analysis of background noise, ratio cut-off, evaluation of multiple repetitions, detailed feature extraction and grouping results. ICEP Run time increases linearly with the increase of the total number of analyzed features. On average, ICEP evaluates 208 features per second.
P-call definition
| Feature P-call | Conditions |
|---|---|
| P | The signal intensity is higher than the background cut-off value in both channels |
| M | The signal intensity is higher than the background cut off value in one channel and lower in the other channel |
| A | The signal intensity is lower than the background cut off in both channels |
Definition of a P-call flag (at the feature level) to distinguish bona fide signals from background noise
Regulation flag definition
| Regulation flag | Conditions |
|---|---|
| UP | Ratio between signal intensities is higher than corresponding ratio cut-off |
| DOWN | Ratio between signal intensities is lower than corresponding ratio cut-off |
| NONE | Ratio between signal intensities is in between upper and lower ratio cut-off |
Definition of a regulation flag (at the EST and the transcript level) to distinguish UP-/DOWN-/NONE-regulated ESTs and transcripts from each other
EST P-call definition
| Rule Nr. | EST P-call | Conditions | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | P | P ≥ 60% ⇒ P | If more than 60% of features representing one EST have a p-call "P" then assign an EST P-call "P" |
| 2 | M | M ≥ 60% ⇒ M | If more than 60% of features representing one EST have a p-call "M" then assign an EST P-call "M" |
| 3 | A | A ≥ 60% ⇒ A | If more than 60% of features representing one EST have a p-call "A" then assign an EST P-call "A" |
| 4 | M | not 1, 2 and 3: M + P ≥ 60% ⇒ M | If criteria 1, 2 and 3 do not apply and more than 60% of features representing one EST have the p-calls "M" and "P" than assign an EST P-call "M" |
| 5 | A | not 1, 2, 3 and 4: M + A ≥ 60% ⇒ A | If criteria 1, 2, 3 and 4 do not apply and more than 60% of features representing one EST have the p-calls "M" and "A" than assign a EST P-call "A" |
Definition of a P-call flag (at the EST level) is based on the P-calls of individual features and allows to distinguish UP-/DOWN-/NONE-regulated ESTs from each other
Dye-swap reliability flag definition
| Dye-swap flag | Conditions |
|---|---|
| Absent | EST shows the p-call "A" in the Cy5 and Cy3 experiment |
| Non reliable | The Cy5 and the Cy3 experiment show identical regulatory behavior (both UP, both DOWN) |
| Non regulated | EST does not show any regulation in both experiments |
| TRUE | EST shows "P" or "M" p-calls and is UP-regulated in the Cy5 and DOWN-regulated in the Cy3 experiment, or vice versa. |
| TRUE | EST shows "P" p-call and is UP-regulated or DOWN-regulated in the, Cy5 while the Cy3 experiment shows a tendency towards the correct direction based on the ratio cut-off value, or vice versa |
| TRUE | EST shows "P" or "M" p-call, but both experiments show NONE-regulated with one is UP-regulated or DOWN-regulated other is NONE-regulated, a tendency of regulation towards the correct direction based on a ratio cut-off |
ICEP determines a reliability flag by evaluating the P-call and regulation flags of ESTs. The reliability flag is used by ICEP to distinguish reliable from unreliable expression changes.
Figure 3Schema of grouping two ESTs. The flow diagram indicates different decision steps in the analysis tree. The grouping procedure for three and more ESTs is done similarly, using rule 1 for 2 ESTs recurrently.
ESTs grouping rules (2 ESTs grouping)
| EST 1 | EST 2 | Rel. Error | Transcript | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| absent | N.A. | absent | N.A. | absent | 0 | NONE | |
| non regulated | NONE | non reliable | 0 | NONE | |||
| non reliable | N.A. | non reliable | 0 | NONE | |||
| TRUE | UP/DOWN | non reliable | Average | NONE | |||
| non regulated | NONE | non regulated | NONE | non regulated | Average | NONE | |
| non reliable | N.A. | non reliable | 0 | NONE | |||
| TRUE | UP/DOWN | non reliable | Average | NONE | |||
| non reliable | N.A. | non reliable | N.A. | non reliable | 0 | NONE | |
| TRUE | UP/DOWN | non reliable | Average | NONE | |||
| TRUE | UP | TRUE | UP | ≥15 | non reliable | Average | UP |
| UP | ≤15 | TRUE | Average | UP | |||
| TRUE | DOWN | non reliable | Average | NONE | |||
| TRUE | DOWN | TRUE | DOWN | ≥15 | non reliable | Average | DOWN |
| DOWN | ≤15 | TRUE | Average | DOWN | |||
| UP | non reliable | Average | NONE | ||||
The EST grouping rules represent rules for a decision-tree based algorithm to summarize expression data from several ESTs, representing one transcript. These are contained within a core table.
Expression increase in iron-loaded and iron-deficient cells
| Gene name | Regulation (D/H) | Final flag | Ratio(av) | P-call (av) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TFRC | UP | TRUE | 5, 23 ± 0, 22 | P |
| MT2A | UP | TRUE | 1, 9 ± 0, 69 | P |
| EPAS1 | UP | TRUE | 1, 76 ± 0, 1 | P |
| SLC11A2 | UP | TRUE | 1, 57 ± 0, 24 | P |
| ACTB | UP | TRUE | 1, 47 ± 0, 29 | P |
| ALAS2 | UP | TRUE | 1, 46 ± 0, 11 | P |
| FTL | DOWN | TRUE | -1, 58 ± 0, 06 | P |
| HSPH1 | DOWN | TRUE | -2, 28 ± 0, 13 | P |
| HMOX1 | DOWN | TRUE | -3, 17 ± 0, 16 | P |
| HSPA1L | DOWN | TRUE | -3, 8 ± 0, 46 | P |
| HSPA1A | DOWN | TRUE | -5, 3 ± 0, 03 | P |
The table represents the average ratios of differentially expressed genes in Hemin-and Desferrioxamine-treated HeLa cells. The relative errors are shown. The table contains only selected columns and genes. The full table is attached (see Additional files 1)