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

Cross-platform comparability of microarray technology: Intra-platform consistency and appropriate data analysis procedures are essential

BACKGROUND: The acceptance of microarray technology in regulatory decision-making is being challenged by the existence of various platforms and data analysis methods. A recent report (E. Marshall, Science, 306, 630–631, 2004), by extensively citing the study of Tan et al. (Nucleic Acids Res., 31, 5676–5684, 2003), portrays a disturbingly negative picture of the cross-platform comparability, and, hence, the reliability of microarray technology. RESULTS: We reanalyzed Tan's dataset and found that the intra-platform consistency was low, indicating a problem in experimental procedures from which the dataset was generated. Furthermore, by using three gene selection methods (i.e., p-value ranking, fold-change ranking, and Significance Analysis of Microarrays (SAM)) on the same dataset we found that p-value ranking (the method emphasized by Tan et al.) results in much lower cross-platform concordance compared to fold-change ranking or SAM. Therefore, the low cross-platform concordance reported in Tan's study appears to be mainly due to a combination of low intra-platform consistency and a poor choice of data analysis procedures, instead of inherent technical differences among different platforms, as suggested by Tan et al. and Marshall. CONCLUSION: Our results illustrate the importance of establishing calibrated RNA samples and reference datasets to objectively assess the performance of different microarray platforms and the proficiency of individual laboratories as well as the merits of various data analysis procedures. Thus, we are progressively coordinating the MAQC project, a community-wide effort for microarray quality control

Microarray scanner calibration curves: characteristics and implications

BACKGROUND: Microarray-based measurement of mRNA abundance assumes a linear relationship between the fluorescence intensity and the dye concentration. In reality, however, the calibration curve can be nonlinear. RESULTS: By scanning a microarray scanner calibration slide containing known concentrations of fluorescent dyes under 18 PMT gains, we were able to evaluate the differences in calibration characteristics of Cy5 and Cy3. First, the calibration curve for the same dye under the same PMT gain is nonlinear at both the high and low intensity ends. Second, the degree of nonlinearity of the calibration curve depends on the PMT gain. Third, the two PMTs (for Cy5 and Cy3) behave differently even under the same gain. Fourth, the background intensity for the Cy3 channel is higher than that for the Cy5 channel. The impact of such characteristics on the accuracy and reproducibility of measured mRNA abundance and the calculated ratios was demonstrated. Combined with simulation results, we provided explanations to the existence of ratio underestimation, intensity-dependence of ratio bias, and anti-correlation of ratios in dye-swap replicates. We further demonstrated that although Lowess normalization effectively eliminates the intensity-dependence of ratio bias, the systematic deviation from true ratios largely remained. A method of calculating ratios based on concentrations estimated from the calibration curves was proposed for correcting ratio bias. CONCLUSION: It is preferable to scan microarray slides at fixed, optimal gain settings under which the linearity between concentration and intensity is maximized. Although normalization methods improve reproducibility of microarray measurements, they appear less effective in improving accuracy

The balance of reproducibility, sensitivity, and specificity of lists of differentially expressed genes in microarray studies

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Reproducibility is a fundamental requirement in scientific experiments. Some recent publications have claimed that microarrays are unreliable because lists of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) are not reproducible in similar experiments. Meanwhile, new statistical methods for identifying DEGs continue to appear in the scientific literature. The resultant variety of existing and emerging methods exacerbates confusion and continuing debate in the microarray community on the appropriate choice of methods for identifying reliable DEG lists.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Using the data sets generated by the MicroArray Quality Control (MAQC) project, we investigated the impact on the reproducibility of DEG lists of a few widely used gene selection procedures. We present comprehensive results from inter-site comparisons using the same microarray platform, cross-platform comparisons using multiple microarray platforms, and comparisons between microarray results and those from TaqMan – the widely regarded "standard" gene expression platform. Our results demonstrate that (1) previously reported discordance between DEG lists could simply result from ranking and selecting DEGs solely by statistical significance (<it>P</it>) derived from widely used simple <it>t</it>-tests; (2) when fold change (FC) is used as the ranking criterion with a non-stringent <it>P</it>-value cutoff filtering, the DEG lists become much more reproducible, especially when fewer genes are selected as differentially expressed, as is the case in most microarray studies; and (3) the instability of short DEG lists solely based on <it>P</it>-value ranking is an expected mathematical consequence of the high variability of the <it>t</it>-values; the more stringent the <it>P</it>-value threshold, the less reproducible the DEG list is. These observations are also consistent with results from extensive simulation calculations.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We recommend the use of FC-ranking plus a non-stringent <it>P </it>cutoff as a straightforward and baseline practice in order to generate more reproducible DEG lists. Specifically, the <it>P</it>-value cutoff should not be stringent (too small) and FC should be as large as possible. Our results provide practical guidance to choose the appropriate FC and <it>P</it>-value cutoffs when selecting a given number of DEGs. The FC criterion enhances reproducibility, whereas the <it>P </it>criterion balances sensitivity and specificity.</p

Strategic paths for biomarker qualification. Toxicology

Biomarkers may be qualified using different qualification processes. A passive approach for qualification has been to accept the end of discussions in the scientific literature as an indication that a biomarker has been accepted. An active approach to qualification requires development of a comprehensive process by which a consensus may be reached about the qualification of a biomarker. Active strategies for qualification include those associated with context-independent as well as context-dependent qualifications

Physician Awareness and Utilization of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-Approved Labeling for Pharmacogenomic Testing Information

Abstract: We surveyed 10,303 United States physicians on where they obtain pharmacogenomic testing information. Thirty-nine percent indicated that they obtained this from drug labeling. Factors positively associated with this response included older age, postgraduate instruction, using other information sources, regulatory approval/ recommendation of testing, reliance on labeling for information, and perception that patients have benefited from testing. Physicians use pharmacogenomic testing information from drug labeling, highlighting the importance of labeling information that is conducive to practice application