57 research outputs found

    A comparison of massively parallel nucleotide sequencing with oligonucleotide microarrays for global transcription profiling

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>RNA-Seq exploits the rapid generation of gigabases of sequence data by Massively Parallel Nucleotide Sequencing, allowing for the mapping and digital quantification of whole transcriptomes. Whilst previous comparisons between RNA-Seq and microarrays have been performed at the level of gene expression, in this study we adopt a more fine-grained approach. Using RNA samples from a normal human breast epithelial cell line (MCF-10a) and a breast cancer cell line (MCF-7), we present a comprehensive comparison between RNA-Seq data generated on the Applied Biosystems SOLiD platform and data from Affymetrix Exon 1.0ST arrays. The use of Exon arrays makes it possible to assess the performance of RNA-Seq in two key areas: detection of expression at the granularity of individual exons, and discovery of transcription outside annotated loci.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We found a high degree of correspondence between the two platforms in terms of exon-level fold changes and detection. For example, over 80% of exons detected as expressed in RNA-Seq were also detected on the Exon array, and 91% of exons flagged as changing from Absent to Present on at least one platform had fold-changes in the same direction. The greatest detection correspondence was seen when the read count threshold at which to flag exons Absent in the SOLiD data was set to <it>t</it><1 suggesting that the background error rate is extremely low in RNA-Seq. We also found RNA-Seq more sensitive to detecting differentially expressed exons than the Exon array, reflecting the wider dynamic range achievable on the SOLiD platform. In addition, we find significant evidence of novel protein coding regions outside known exons, 93% of which map to Exon array probesets, and are able to infer the presence of thousands of novel transcripts through the detection of previously unreported exon-exon junctions.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>By focusing on exon-level expression, we present the most fine-grained comparison between RNA-Seq and microarrays to date. Overall, our study demonstrates that data from a SOLiD RNA-Seq experiment are sufficient to generate results comparable to those produced from Affymetrix Exon arrays, even using only a single replicate from each platform, and when presented with a large genome.</p

    The utility of MAS5 expression summary and detection call algorithms

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Used alone, the MAS5.0 algorithm for generating expression summaries has been criticized for high False Positive rates resulting from exaggerated variance at low intensities.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Here we show, with replicated cell line data, that, when used alongside detection calls, MAS5 can be both selective and sensitive. A set of differentially expressed transcripts were identified that were found to be changing by MAS5, but unchanging by RMA and GCRMA. Subsequent analysis by real time PCR confirmed these changes. In addition, with the Latin square datasets often used to assess expression summary algorithms, filtered MAS5.0 was found to have performance approaching that of its peers.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>When used alongside detection calls, MAS5 is a sensitive and selective algorithm for identifying differentially expressed genes.</p

    The removal of multiplicative, systematic bias allows integration of breast cancer gene expression datasets – improving meta-analysis and prediction of prognosis

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: The number of gene expression studies in the public domain is rapidly increasing, representing a highly valuable resource. However, dataset-specific bias precludes meta-analysis at the raw transcript level, even when the RNA is from comparable sources and has been processed on the same microarray platform using similar protocols. Here, we demonstrate, using Affymetrix data, that much of this bias can be removed, allowing multiple datasets to be legitimately combined for meaningful meta-analyses. RESULTS: A series of validation datasets comparing breast cancer and normal breast cell lines (MCF7 and MCF10A) were generated to examine the variability between datasets generated using different amounts of starting RNA, alternative protocols, different generations of Affymetrix GeneChip or scanning hardware. We demonstrate that systematic, multiplicative biases are introduced at the RNA, hybridization and image-capture stages of a microarray experiment. Simple batch mean-centering was found to significantly reduce the level of inter-experimental variation, allowing raw transcript levels to be compared across datasets with confidence. By accounting for dataset-specific bias, we were able to assemble the largest gene expression dataset of primary breast tumours to-date (1107), from six previously published studies. Using this meta-dataset, we demonstrate that combining greater numbers of datasets or tumours leads to a greater overlap in differentially expressed genes and more accurate prognostic predictions. However, this is highly dependent upon the composition of the datasets and patient characteristics. CONCLUSION: Multiplicative, systematic biases are introduced at many stages of microarray experiments. When these are reconciled, raw data can be directly integrated from different gene expression datasets leading to new biological findings with increased statistical power

    Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance in Marfan syndrome

    Full text link

    Amplification protocols introduce systematic but reproducible errors into gene expression studies

    No full text
    The desire to perform microarray experiments with small starting amounts of RNA has led to the development of a variety of protocols for preparing and amplifying mRNA. This has consequences not only for the standardization of experimental design, but also for reproducibility and comparability between experiments. Here we investigate the differences between the Affymetrix standard and small sample protocols and address the data analysis issues that arise when comparing samples and experiments that have been processed in different ways. We show that data generated on the same platform using different protocols are not directly comparable. Further, protocols introduce systematic biases that can be largely accounted for by using the correct data analysis techniques. </jats:p
    • …
    corecore