1 / 26

Evaluation of Affymetrix array normalization procedures based on spiked cRNAs

Evaluation of Affymetrix array normalization procedures based on spiked cRNAs. Andrew Hill Expression Profiling Informatics Genetics Institute/Wyeth-Ayerst Research. Outline. The GI/Harvard C. elegans array dataset as a normalization testbed Some general challenges of array data reduction

arch
Télécharger la présentation

Evaluation of Affymetrix array normalization procedures based on spiked cRNAs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Evaluation of Affymetrix array normalization procedures based on spiked cRNAs Andrew Hill Expression Profiling Informatics Genetics Institute/Wyeth-Ayerst Research

  2. Outline • The GI/Harvard C. elegans array dataset as a normalization testbed • Some general challenges of array data reduction • GeneChip Scaled Average Difference (ADs) • the constant mean assumption • A purely spike-based normalization strategy (Frequency) • A hybrid normalization (Scaled Frequency) • Conclusions

  3. GI/Harvard C. elegans dataset • This data set used to evaluate several normalization procedures • Experiments: • 8 developmental stages of the worm C. elegans were profiled, ranging from egg to adult worm • n=2-4 replicate hybridizations for most array designs at most stages • 52 total arrays • Arrays: • Three custom worm GeneChip designs (A, B, and C) • Each array monitors between 5700-6700 ORFs, in aggregate ~98% of the worm genome • Chip A: ORFs with cDNA/EST matches in AceDB • Chips B/C: other ORFs • Several worm ORFs tiled on all 3 arrays for across-array-design comparisons Science 290 809-812; Genome Biology (in the press)

  4. Some challenges of Affymetrix GeneChip data reduction • Array data from Affymetrix GeneChip sofware (pre-MAS 5.0): • negative low intensity signals • lack of across-design normalization standard • limited QC information • Spike-based normalization methods can help to address each of these challenges Normalization: array scaling of average difference data from multiple arrays/designs to minimize technical noise among arrays • Current “standard” normalization procedure is a global scaling procedure: the GeneChip scaled average difference (ADs)

  5. GeneChip Scaled Average Difference (ADs) • The trimmed (2%) mean intensity of all probesets on all arrays is scaled to a constant target level. • Works well in many cases (e.g. replicates) • Some obvious situations where the “constant mean assumption” may not be well supported.

  6. Constant mean assumption: problematic cases • Chips monitoring a “small” fraction of transcriptome • Non-random gene selection on arrays (e.g. C. elegans A vs. B/C) • Large biological variation in expression

  7. A cRNA spike-based normalization procedure (Frequency) • Add 11 biotin-labeled cRNA spikes to each hybridization cocktail • Construct a calibration curve • Use the Absent/Present calls for the spikes to estimate array sensitivity • Dampen AD signals below the sensitivity level to eliminate negative AD values.

  8. Eleven spiked cRNAs

  9. Response to spikes over 2.5 log range Figure 2 • Fit response with S-plus GLM, gamma error model, zero intercept. • Power law fit AD=kFn yields n=0.93 • cRNA mass, scanner PMT gain are important determinants of response

  10. Chip sensitivity calculation • Consider A/P calls as binary response against log(known frequency) • Compute sensitivity as 70% likelihood level by either interpolation or logistic regression • “Dampen” computed frequencies below sensitivity: • F < 0: F’ = avg(0,S) • 0<F<S: F’=avg(F,S)

  11. How well does it work?

  12. Reproducibility of F metric (A array)

  13. Example of spike-skewed hybridization (36 hr sample) • cRNA spikes are well normalized at the expense of worm genes • Suggests inconsistency between ratio of spikes to worm cRNA across samples: spike skew

  14. Sources of spike skew • Actual concentration of spikes may not be nominal due to variation in cRNA “purity” • Causes: liquid handling of small microlitre volumes, side reactions in cDNA/IVT process produce UV-absorbing, non-hybridizable contaminants • Result: random per-hybe noise term introduced into normalized frequencies

  15. An alternative hybrid normalization: Scaled frequency (Fs) • Need to reduce or eliminate spike skew as a source of experimental variation in normalized frequencies • Average the globally scaled spike response over a complete set of arrays

  16. Scaled frequency description • Define a set of arrays • Compute ADs for all arrays • Pool spike responses and fit single model to pooled response • Calibrate all arrays with single calibration factor • Compute array sensitivity and dampen frequencies as in the frequency approach.

  17. A pooled, scaled spike response • Fit response with S-plus GLM, gamma error model, zero intercept.

  18. Reproducibility of Fs metric (A array)

  19. Scaled frequency: cross design reproducibility (A,B,C arrays) Three messages tiled on all array designs and called Present on all 0h arrays

  20. Conclusions • Array response to spiked cRNAs can be close to linear over 2.5 logs of concentration. • A chip sensitivity metric can be computed from Absolute Decisions associated with spikes; a very useful QC metric. • Normalization based only on spikes performs inconsistently in some cases due to ill-quantitation of cRNAs, but can still be valuable when constant-mean assumption is violated. Better cRNA quantitation and process control will help. • A hybrid approach based on global scaling and spikes performs the same as global AD scaling for single designs, and also allows cross-design comparisons

  21. Acknowledgements • Donna Slonim • Maryann Whitley • Yizheng Li • Bill Mounts • Scott Jelinsky • Gene Brown • Harvard University: • Craig Hunter • Ryan Baugh

  22. Extra slides follow ( not part of presentation)

  23. Simulations (description) • Simulations were performed • Governing equation:

  24. Figure 4 CV characteristics of simulated data

  25. Simulations: spike skew degrades reproducibility of frequency (A array)

  26. Figure 7 Simulations: spike skew degrades accuracy of frequency

More Related