1 / 13

Comparing Gene Expression Between Affymetrix Arrays

Comparing Gene Expression Between Affymetrix Arrays. Biostat 278 January 22 th , 2008. Identification of “Interesting” Genes. Many different methods for finding differentially expressed genes. Depends on experimental design and outcome measures. Observational Methods. Statistical Methods.

boone
Télécharger la présentation

Comparing Gene Expression Between Affymetrix Arrays

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. Comparing Gene Expression Between Affymetrix Arrays Biostat 278 January 22th, 2008

  2. Identification of “Interesting” Genes • Many different methods for finding differentially expressed genes. Depends on experimental design and outcome measures Observational Methods Statistical Methods • Present/Absent (MAS4) • Increase/Decrease Call • Absolute Difference • Fold Change • Test for Significant Signal (MAS5) • Statistical Test for Difference • Confidence Interval for Fold-Change

  3. Present/Absent • The percentage of arrays in which the gene is called present (Affy or Statistical Test) can be used as a filtering criterion. • Genes with low percent present likely have expression in the noise range. • Can remove “Absent” genes prior to the statistical comparison between arrays. • Referred to a m/n filter (Pounds/Cheng 2005)

  4. Increase/Decrease Call • MAS 5.0 also allows users to set a baseline chip to allow increase/decrease and log ratio outputs. • Global scaling of both chips first • Looks at differences in each specific probe pair • Uses Wilcoxon signed rank test to identify differences (problem with non-independence) • Users have to set “perturbation” which sets a range between the chips that will not be called a change. This will change the above test (and reported p value) • 4 additional parameters to set p value cutoffs for increase/marginal/decrease calls

  5. Fold Change • Arbitrary threshold is used for filtering (e.g. 2- or 3- fold) • Fold Change computation: Let: E=mean(group1), B=mean(group2) • FC= (E-B)/max(min(E,B),2*Q) • At low expression levels, a 3 fold change can be noise • At high expression levels a 1.1 fold change can be biologically important.

  6. Confidence Interval for Fold Change • Confidence intervals provide an interval estimate for a parameter of interest. • Practical Interpretation. A 95% confidence interval will include the true value of the parameter 95% of the time. • If we use Li-Wong or RMA we can estimate the standard error of the expression signal for a pair arrays. • For many arrays can estimate the standard error based on the weighted standard deviation. • Typically we want to CI for the fold-change to exclude 1.

  7. Statistical Tests • Statistical tests seek to make conclusions about parameters (ex. Mean gene expression in groups 1 and 2) on the basis of data in a sample. • Structure of statistical tests involve testing two hypotheses. The null hypothesis H0 and the alternative hypothesis HA. • The null hypothesis is usually a hypothesis of no difference.

  8. Statistical Errors • We can never know if we have made a statistical error, but we can quantify the chance of making such errors. What are consequences of errors? • The probability of a Type I error = α : False Positive • The probability of a Type II error = β : False Negative

  9. Basic Statistical Comparisons between groups • t-Tests & ANOVA • Much better than fold change thresholds • Need to characterize (or stabilize) variances • Assumes normal distribution of expression values. Transformation helps. • Non-Parametric Tests: Wilcoxon or Kruskal-Wallis

  10. Multiple testing problem • We are testing 10,000+ genes. Setting p<0.05 means expect 5% false positives! • Multiple testing corrections adjust the p value • Very deceptive to report unadjusted p value. • Bonferroni multiplies individual p value by number of tests • Worst case family error rate, too conservative, provides strong control • False Discovery Rate (FDR) is a better approach for exploratory microarray studies

  11. False Discovery Rate • Proposed by Benjamini & Hochberg • Simple procedure works on p values of individual tests • Allows combinations of different kinds of tests • Controls expected proportion of false positives in set of non-null hypotheses • FDR * number of rejections = expected maximum number of those rejections that were false. • Weak control. Could be true number of false rejections is larger than the expected number. • Very effective when number of comparisons is large.

  12. Permutation multiple testing correction procedure • Permutation testing • Scramble (randomly permute) the data to randomize relationship of interest, leaving other structure unchanged • Do (any) testing procedure on permuted data • Repeat K times. • Proportion of times randomly permuted data scores better than actual data is p value • As K increases, becomes very accurate measure of p value. Makes no assumptions about test, so works with any test. • Very time consuming (typical K = 2000)

  13. Consequences of multiple testing corrections • Multiple testing corrections cost statistical power (probability of correctly rejecting the null when there really is a difference) • The more genes tested, the greater the loss • Therefore, eliminate as many genes as possible from consideration before testing for significant differences. • E.g. by eliminating genes that didn't change at all on any chips, without regard to experimental condition.

More Related