Cargando…

Comparison of sequence-dependent tiling array normalization approaches

BACKGROUND: The detection of enriched DNA or RNA fragments by tiling microarrays has become more and more popular. These microarrays contain a high number of small probes covering genomic loci. However, to achieve high coverage the probe sequences cannot be selected for their hybridization propertie...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chung, Ho-Ryun, Vingron, Martin
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2753852/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19566918
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-10-204
_version_ 1782172368753393664
author Chung, Ho-Ryun
Vingron, Martin
author_facet Chung, Ho-Ryun
Vingron, Martin
author_sort Chung, Ho-Ryun
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The detection of enriched DNA or RNA fragments by tiling microarrays has become more and more popular. These microarrays contain a high number of small probes covering genomic loci. However, to achieve high coverage the probe sequences cannot be selected for their hybridization properties. The affinity of the probes towards their targets varies in a sequence-dependent manner. In order to remove this bias a number of approaches have been developed and shown to increase the detection of enriched DNA or RNA fragments. However, these approaches also employ a peak detection algorithm that is different from the one used previously. Thus, it seems possible that the enhancement of detection is due to the peak detection algorithm rather than the sequence-dependent normalization. RESULTS: We compared three different sequence-dependent probe level normalization procedures to a naïve sequence-independent normalization technique. In order to achieve maximal comparability, we used the normalized intensity values as input to a single peak detection algorithm. A so-called "spike-in" data set served as benchmark for the performance. We will show that the sequence-dependent normalization procedures do not perform better than the naïve approach, suggesting that the benefit of using these normalization approaches is limited. Furthermore, we will show that the naïve approach does well, because it effectively removes the sequence-dependent component of the measured intensities with the help of the control hybridization experiment. CONCLUSION: Sequence-dependent normalization of microarray data hardly improves the detection of enriched DNA or RNA fragments. The "success" of the sequence-independent naïve approach is only possible due to the control experiment and requires proper scaling of the measured intensities.
format Text
id pubmed-2753852
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-27538522009-09-29 Comparison of sequence-dependent tiling array normalization approaches Chung, Ho-Ryun Vingron, Martin BMC Bioinformatics Methodology Article BACKGROUND: The detection of enriched DNA or RNA fragments by tiling microarrays has become more and more popular. These microarrays contain a high number of small probes covering genomic loci. However, to achieve high coverage the probe sequences cannot be selected for their hybridization properties. The affinity of the probes towards their targets varies in a sequence-dependent manner. In order to remove this bias a number of approaches have been developed and shown to increase the detection of enriched DNA or RNA fragments. However, these approaches also employ a peak detection algorithm that is different from the one used previously. Thus, it seems possible that the enhancement of detection is due to the peak detection algorithm rather than the sequence-dependent normalization. RESULTS: We compared three different sequence-dependent probe level normalization procedures to a naïve sequence-independent normalization technique. In order to achieve maximal comparability, we used the normalized intensity values as input to a single peak detection algorithm. A so-called "spike-in" data set served as benchmark for the performance. We will show that the sequence-dependent normalization procedures do not perform better than the naïve approach, suggesting that the benefit of using these normalization approaches is limited. Furthermore, we will show that the naïve approach does well, because it effectively removes the sequence-dependent component of the measured intensities with the help of the control hybridization experiment. CONCLUSION: Sequence-dependent normalization of microarray data hardly improves the detection of enriched DNA or RNA fragments. The "success" of the sequence-independent naïve approach is only possible due to the control experiment and requires proper scaling of the measured intensities. BioMed Central 2009-06-30 /pmc/articles/PMC2753852/ /pubmed/19566918 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-10-204 Text en Copyright © 2009 Chung and Vingron; 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 Methodology Article
Chung, Ho-Ryun
Vingron, Martin
Comparison of sequence-dependent tiling array normalization approaches
title Comparison of sequence-dependent tiling array normalization approaches
title_full Comparison of sequence-dependent tiling array normalization approaches
title_fullStr Comparison of sequence-dependent tiling array normalization approaches
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of sequence-dependent tiling array normalization approaches
title_short Comparison of sequence-dependent tiling array normalization approaches
title_sort comparison of sequence-dependent tiling array normalization approaches
topic Methodology Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2753852/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19566918
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-10-204
work_keys_str_mv AT chunghoryun comparisonofsequencedependenttilingarraynormalizationapproaches
AT vingronmartin comparisonofsequencedependenttilingarraynormalizationapproaches