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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |