| Literature DB >> 21047405 |
Nicolas Servant1, Eleonore Gravier, Pierre Gestraud, Cecile Laurent, Caroline Paccard, Anne Biton, Isabel Brito, Jonas Mandel, Bernard Asselain, Emmanuel Barillot, Philippe Hupé.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The increasing number of methodologies and tools currently available to analyse gene expression microarray data can be confusing for non specialist users.Entities:
Year: 2010 PMID: 21047405 PMCID: PMC2987873 DOI: 10.1186/1756-0500-3-277
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Res Notes ISSN: 1756-0500
Figure 1Graphical outputs provided by the EMA package for the class comparison study of [18]. (a) Histogram of probesets expression values across the 23 samples after GCRMA normalisation and log2 transformation. Probesets with an expression value below 3.5 (red vertical line) are discarded. (b) Individuals factor map produced by the PCA performed on the 23 filtered gene expression profiles. (c) Heatmap of the 23 gene expression profiles based on the 100 genes with the highest interquartile range (IQR) values. Sample clustering was performed using Pearson's correlation coefficient and Ward criterion. Gene clustering was performed using absolute Pearson's correlation coefficient and Ward criterion. (d) Qqplot produced by the SAM analysis on the two groups of tumours. Probesets in green are considered to be differentially expressed between the two conditions.