| Literature DB >> 25595567 |
Corey W Goodman1, Heather J Major2, William D Walls3, Val C Sheffield4, Thomas L Casavant5, Benjamin W Darbro6.
Abstract
Chromosomal microarrays (CMAs) are routinely used in both research and clinical laboratories; yet, little attention has been given to the estimation of genome-wide true and false negatives during the assessment of these assays and how such information could be used to calibrate various algorithmic metrics to improve performance. Low-throughput, locus-specific methods such as fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), quantitative PCR (qPCR), or multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) preclude rigorous calibration of various metrics used by copy number variant (CNV) detection algorithms. To aid this task, we have established a comparative methodology, CNV-ROC, which is capable of performing a high throughput, low cost, analysis of CMAs that takes into consideration genome-wide true and false negatives. CNV-ROC uses a higher resolution microarray to confirm calls from a lower resolution microarray and provides for a true measure of genome-wide performance metrics at the resolution offered by microarray testing. CNV-ROC also provides for a very precise comparison of CNV calls between two microarray platforms without the need to establish an arbitrary degree of overlap. Comparison of CNVs across microarrays is done on a per-probe basis and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis is used to calibrate algorithmic metrics, such as log2 ratio threshold, to enhance CNV calling performance. CNV-ROC addresses a critical and consistently overlooked aspect of analytical assessments of genome-wide techniques like CMAs which is the measurement and use of genome-wide true and false negative data for the calculation of performance metrics and comparison of CNV profiles between different microarray experiments.Entities:
Keywords: Microarray; Precision; ROC; Sensitivity; Specificity
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25595567 PMCID: PMC4936396 DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2015.01.001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Biomed Inform ISSN: 1532-0464 Impact factor: 6.317