The Reproducibility of Lists of Differentially Expressed Genes in Microarray Studies

Reproducibility is a fundamental requirement in scientific experiments and clinical contexts. Recent publications raise concerns about the reliability of microarray technology because of the apparent lack of agreement between lists of differentially expressed genes (DEGs). In this study we demonstrate that (1) such discordance may stem from ranking and selecting DEGs solely by statistical significance (P) derived from widely used simple t-tests; (2) when fold change (FC) is used as the ranking criterion, the lists become much more reproducible, especially when fewer genes are selected; and (3) the instability of short DEG lists based on P cutoffs is an expected mathematical consequence of the high variability of the t-values. We recommend the use of FC ranking plus a non-stringent P cutoff as a baseline practice in order to generate more reproducible DEG lists. The FC criterion enhances reproducibility while the P criterion balances sensitivity and specificity

maigesPack: A Computational Environment for Microarray Data Analysis

Microarray technology is still an important way to assess gene expression in molecular biology, mainly because it measures expression profiles for thousands of genes simultaneously, what makes this technology a good option for some studies focused on systems biology. One of its main problem is complexity of experimental procedure, presenting several sources of variability, hindering statistical modeling. So far, there is no standard protocol for generation and evaluation of microarray data. To mitigate the analysis process this paper presents an R package, named maigesPack, that helps with data organization. Besides that, it makes data analysis process more robust, reliable and reproducible. Also, maigesPack aggregates several data analysis procedures reported in literature, for instance: cluster analysis, differential expression, supervised classifiers, relevance networks and functional classification of gene groups or gene networks

Optimal classifier selection and negative bias in error rate estimation: An empirical study on high-dimensional prediction

In biometric practice, researchers often apply a large number of different methods in a "trial-and-error" strategy to get as much as possible out of their data and, due to publication pressure or pressure from the consulting customer, present only the most favorable results. This strategy may induce a substantial optimistic bias in prediction error estimation, which is quantitatively assessed in the present manuscript. The focus of our work is on class prediction based on high-dimensional data (e.g. microarray data), since such analyses are particularly exposed to this kind of bias. In our study we consider a total of 124 variants of classifiers (possibly including variable selection or tuning steps) within a cross-validation evaluation scheme. The classifiers are applied to original and modified real microarray data sets, some of which are obtained by randomly permuting the class labels to mimic non-informative predictors while preserving their correlation structure. We then assess the minimal misclassification rate over the different variants of classifiers in order to quantify the bias arising when the optimal classifier is selected a posteriori in a data-driven manner. The bias resulting from the parameter tuning (including gene selection parameters as a special case) and the bias resulting from the choice of the classification method are examined both separately and jointly. We conclude that the strategy to present only the optimal result is not acceptable, and suggest alternative approaches for properly reporting classification accuracy

Can Zipf's law be adapted to normalize microarrays?

BACKGROUND: Normalization is the process of removing non-biological sources of variation between array experiments. Recent investigations of data in gene expression databases for varying organisms and tissues have shown that the majority of expressed genes exhibit a power-law distribution with an exponent close to -1 (i.e. obey Zipf's law). Based on the observation that our single channel and two channel microarray data sets also followed a power-law distribution, we were motivated to develop a normalization method based on this law, and examine how it compares with existing published techniques. A computationally simple and intuitively appealing technique based on this observation is presented. RESULTS: Using pairwise comparisons using MA plots (log ratio vs. log intensity), we compared this novel method to previously published normalization techniques, namely global normalization to the mean, the quantile method, and a variation on the loess normalization method designed specifically for boutique microarrays. Results indicated that, for single channel microarrays, the quantile method was superior with regard to eliminating intensity-dependent effects (banana curves), but Zipf's law normalization does minimize this effect by rotating the data distribution such that the maximal number of data points lie on the zero of the log ratio axis. For two channel boutique microarrays, the Zipf's law normalizations performed as well as, or better than existing techniques. CONCLUSION: Zipf's law normalization is a useful tool where the Quantile method cannot be applied, as is the case with microarrays containing functionally specific gene sets (boutique arrays)

J Fluorescence

The scope of this paper is to illustrate the need for an improved quality assurance in fluorometry. For this purpose, instrumental sources of error and their influences on the reliability and comparability of fluorescence data are highlighted for frequently used photoluminescence techniques ranging from conventional macro- and microfluorometry over fluorescence microscopy and flow cytometry to microarray technology as well as in vivo fluorescence imaging. Particularly, the need for and requirements on fluorescence standards for the characterization and performance validation of fluorescence instruments, to enhance the comparability of fluorescence data, and to enable quantitative fluorescence analysis are discussed. Special emphasis is dedicated to spectral fluorescence standards and fluorescence intensity standards

Essential guidelines for computational method benchmarking

In computational biology and other sciences, researchers are frequently faced with a choice between several computational methods for performing data analyses. Benchmarking studies aim to rigorously compare the performance of different methods using well-characterized benchmark datasets, to determine the strengths of each method or to provide recommendations regarding suitable choices of methods for an analysis. However, benchmarking studies must be carefully designed and implemented to provide accurate, unbiased, and informative results. Here, we summarize key practical guidelines and recommendations for performing high-quality benchmarking analyses, based on our experiences in computational biology.Comment: Minor update

Over-optimism in bioinformatics: an illustration

In statistical bioinformatics research, different optimization mechanisms potentially lead to "over-optimism" in published papers. The present empirical study illustrates these mechanisms through a concrete example from an active research field. The investigated sources of over-optimism include the optimization of the data sets, of the settings, of the competing methods and, most importantly, of the method’s characteristics. We consider a "promising" new classification algorithm that turns out to yield disappointing results in terms of error rate, namely linear discriminant analysis incorporating prior knowledge on gene functional groups through an appropriate shrinkage of the within-group covariance matrix. We quantitatively demonstrate that this disappointing method can artificially seem superior to existing approaches if we "fish for significance”. We conclude that, if the improvement of a quantitative criterion such as the error rate is the main contribution of a paper, the superiority of new algorithms should be validated using "fresh" validation data sets