dx.doi.org/10.1051/gse:2007031

Preview meta tags from the dx.doi.org website.

Linked Hostnames

16

Thumbnail

Search Engine Appearance

Google

https://dx.doi.org/10.1051/gse:2007031

Analysis of a simulated microarray dataset: Comparison of methods for data normalisation and detection of differential expression (Open Access publication) - Genetics Selection Evolution

Microarrays allow researchers to measure the expression of thousands of genes in a single experiment. Before statistical comparisons can be made, the data must be assessed for quality and normalisation procedures must be applied, of which many have been proposed. Methods of comparing the normalised data are also abundant, and no clear consensus has yet been reached. The purpose of this paper was to compare those methods used by the EADGENE network on a very noisy simulated data set. With the a priori knowledge of which genes are differentially expressed, it is possible to compare the success of each approach quantitatively. Use of an intensity-dependent normalisation procedure was common, as was correction for multiple testing. Most variety in performance resulted from differing approaches to data quality and the use of different statistical tests. Very few of the methods used any kind of background correction. A number of approaches achieved a success rate of 95% or above, with relatively small numbers of false positives and negatives. Applying stringent spot selection criteria and elimination of data did not improve the false positive rate and greatly increased the false negative rate. However, most approaches performed well, and it is encouraging that widely available techniques can achieve such good results on a very noisy data set.



Bing

Analysis of a simulated microarray dataset: Comparison of methods for data normalisation and detection of differential expression (Open Access publication) - Genetics Selection Evolution

https://dx.doi.org/10.1051/gse:2007031

Microarrays allow researchers to measure the expression of thousands of genes in a single experiment. Before statistical comparisons can be made, the data must be assessed for quality and normalisation procedures must be applied, of which many have been proposed. Methods of comparing the normalised data are also abundant, and no clear consensus has yet been reached. The purpose of this paper was to compare those methods used by the EADGENE network on a very noisy simulated data set. With the a priori knowledge of which genes are differentially expressed, it is possible to compare the success of each approach quantitatively. Use of an intensity-dependent normalisation procedure was common, as was correction for multiple testing. Most variety in performance resulted from differing approaches to data quality and the use of different statistical tests. Very few of the methods used any kind of background correction. A number of approaches achieved a success rate of 95% or above, with relatively small numbers of false positives and negatives. Applying stringent spot selection criteria and elimination of data did not improve the false positive rate and greatly increased the false negative rate. However, most approaches performed well, and it is encouraging that widely available techniques can achieve such good results on a very noisy data set.



DuckDuckGo

https://dx.doi.org/10.1051/gse:2007031

Analysis of a simulated microarray dataset: Comparison of methods for data normalisation and detection of differential expression (Open Access publication) - Genetics Selection Evolution

Microarrays allow researchers to measure the expression of thousands of genes in a single experiment. Before statistical comparisons can be made, the data must be assessed for quality and normalisation procedures must be applied, of which many have been proposed. Methods of comparing the normalised data are also abundant, and no clear consensus has yet been reached. The purpose of this paper was to compare those methods used by the EADGENE network on a very noisy simulated data set. With the a priori knowledge of which genes are differentially expressed, it is possible to compare the success of each approach quantitatively. Use of an intensity-dependent normalisation procedure was common, as was correction for multiple testing. Most variety in performance resulted from differing approaches to data quality and the use of different statistical tests. Very few of the methods used any kind of background correction. A number of approaches achieved a success rate of 95% or above, with relatively small numbers of false positives and negatives. Applying stringent spot selection criteria and elimination of data did not improve the false positive rate and greatly increased the false negative rate. However, most approaches performed well, and it is encouraging that widely available techniques can achieve such good results on a very noisy data set.

  • General Meta Tags

    125
    • title
      Analysis of a simulated microarray dataset: Comparison of methods for data normalisation and detection of differential expression (Open Access publication) | Genetics Selection Evolution | Full Text
    • charset
      UTF-8
    • X-UA-Compatible
      IE=edge
    • applicable-device
      pc,mobile
    • viewport
      width=device-width, initial-scale=1
  • Open Graph Meta Tags

    6
    • og:url
      https://gsejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1297-9686-39-6-669
    • og:type
      article
    • og:site_name
      BioMed Central
    • og:title
      Analysis of a simulated microarray dataset: Comparison of methods for data normalisation and detection of differential expression (Open Access publication) - Genetics Selection Evolution
    • og:description
      Microarrays allow researchers to measure the expression of thousands of genes in a single experiment. Before statistical comparisons can be made, the data must be assessed for quality and normalisation procedures must be applied, of which many have been proposed. Methods of comparing the normalised data are also abundant, and no clear consensus has yet been reached. The purpose of this paper was to compare those methods used by the EADGENE network on a very noisy simulated data set. With the a priori knowledge of which genes are differentially expressed, it is possible to compare the success of each approach quantitatively. Use of an intensity-dependent normalisation procedure was common, as was correction for multiple testing. Most variety in performance resulted from differing approaches to data quality and the use of different statistical tests. Very few of the methods used any kind of background correction. A number of approaches achieved a success rate of 95% or above, with relatively small numbers of false positives and negatives. Applying stringent spot selection criteria and elimination of data did not improve the false positive rate and greatly increased the false negative rate. However, most approaches performed well, and it is encouraging that widely available techniques can achieve such good results on a very noisy data set.
  • Link Tags

    12
    • apple-touch-icon
      /static/img/favicons/bmc/apple-touch-icon-582ef1d0f5.png
    • canonical
      https://gsejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1297-9686-39-6-669
    • icon
      /static/img/favicons/bmc/android-chrome-192x192-9625b7cdba.png
    • icon
      /static/img/favicons/bmc/favicon-32x32-5d7879efe1.png
    • icon
      /static/img/favicons/bmc/favicon-16x16-c241ac1a2f.png

Emails

2

Links

101