Cargando…

Detecting differential expression in microarray data: comparison of optimal procedures

BACKGROUND: Many procedures for finding differentially expressed genes in microarray data are based on classical or modified t-statistics. Due to multiple testing considerations, the false discovery rate (FDR) is the key tool for assessing the significance of these test statistics. Two recent papers...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Perelman, Elena, Ploner, Alexander, Calza, Stefano, Pawitan, Yudi
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2007
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1797811/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17257426
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-8-28
_version_ 1782132315985543168
author Perelman, Elena
Ploner, Alexander
Calza, Stefano
Pawitan, Yudi
author_facet Perelman, Elena
Ploner, Alexander
Calza, Stefano
Pawitan, Yudi
author_sort Perelman, Elena
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Many procedures for finding differentially expressed genes in microarray data are based on classical or modified t-statistics. Due to multiple testing considerations, the false discovery rate (FDR) is the key tool for assessing the significance of these test statistics. Two recent papers have generalized two aspects: Storey et al. (2005) have introduced a likelihood ratio test statistic for two-sample situations that has desirable theoretical properties (optimal discovery procedure, ODP), but uses standard FDR assessment; Ploner et al. (2006) have introduced a multivariate local FDR that allows incorporation of standard error information, but uses the standard t-statistic (fdr2d). The relationship and relative performance of these methods in two-sample comparisons is currently unknown. METHODS: Using simulated and real datasets, we compare the ODP and fdr2d procedures. We also introduce a new procedure called S2d that combines the ODP test statistic with the extended FDR assessment of fdr2d. RESULTS: For both simulated and real datasets, fdr2d performs better than ODP. As expected, both methods perform better than a standard t-statistic with standard local FDR. The new procedure S2d performs as well as fdr2d on simulated data, but performs better on the real data sets. CONCLUSION: The ODP can be improved by including the standard error information as in fdr2d. This means that the optimality enjoyed in theory by ODP does not hold for the estimated version that has to be used in practice. The new procedure S2d has a slight advantage over fdr2d, which has to be balanced against a significantly higher computational effort and a less intuititive test statistic.
format Text
id pubmed-1797811
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2007
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-17978112007-02-16 Detecting differential expression in microarray data: comparison of optimal procedures Perelman, Elena Ploner, Alexander Calza, Stefano Pawitan, Yudi BMC Bioinformatics Research Article BACKGROUND: Many procedures for finding differentially expressed genes in microarray data are based on classical or modified t-statistics. Due to multiple testing considerations, the false discovery rate (FDR) is the key tool for assessing the significance of these test statistics. Two recent papers have generalized two aspects: Storey et al. (2005) have introduced a likelihood ratio test statistic for two-sample situations that has desirable theoretical properties (optimal discovery procedure, ODP), but uses standard FDR assessment; Ploner et al. (2006) have introduced a multivariate local FDR that allows incorporation of standard error information, but uses the standard t-statistic (fdr2d). The relationship and relative performance of these methods in two-sample comparisons is currently unknown. METHODS: Using simulated and real datasets, we compare the ODP and fdr2d procedures. We also introduce a new procedure called S2d that combines the ODP test statistic with the extended FDR assessment of fdr2d. RESULTS: For both simulated and real datasets, fdr2d performs better than ODP. As expected, both methods perform better than a standard t-statistic with standard local FDR. The new procedure S2d performs as well as fdr2d on simulated data, but performs better on the real data sets. CONCLUSION: The ODP can be improved by including the standard error information as in fdr2d. This means that the optimality enjoyed in theory by ODP does not hold for the estimated version that has to be used in practice. The new procedure S2d has a slight advantage over fdr2d, which has to be balanced against a significantly higher computational effort and a less intuititive test statistic. BioMed Central 2007-01-26 /pmc/articles/PMC1797811/ /pubmed/17257426 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-8-28 Text en Copyright © 2007 Perelman et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Perelman, Elena
Ploner, Alexander
Calza, Stefano
Pawitan, Yudi
Detecting differential expression in microarray data: comparison of optimal procedures
title Detecting differential expression in microarray data: comparison of optimal procedures
title_full Detecting differential expression in microarray data: comparison of optimal procedures
title_fullStr Detecting differential expression in microarray data: comparison of optimal procedures
title_full_unstemmed Detecting differential expression in microarray data: comparison of optimal procedures
title_short Detecting differential expression in microarray data: comparison of optimal procedures
title_sort detecting differential expression in microarray data: comparison of optimal procedures
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1797811/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17257426
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-8-28
work_keys_str_mv AT perelmanelena detectingdifferentialexpressioninmicroarraydatacomparisonofoptimalprocedures
AT ploneralexander detectingdifferentialexpressioninmicroarraydatacomparisonofoptimalprocedures
AT calzastefano detectingdifferentialexpressioninmicroarraydatacomparisonofoptimalprocedures
AT pawitanyudi detectingdifferentialexpressioninmicroarraydatacomparisonofoptimalprocedures