Cargando…

Confounding Factors in the Transcriptome Analysis of an In-Vivo Exposure Experiment

CONFOUNDING FACTORS: In transcriptomics experimentation, confounding factors frequently exist alongside the intended experimental factors and can severely influence the outcome of a transcriptome analysis. Confounding factors are regularly discussed in methodological literature, but their actual, pr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bruning, Oskar, Rodenburg, Wendy, Wackers, Paul F. K., van Oostrom, Conny, Jonker, Martijs J., Dekker, Rob J., Rauwerda, Han, Ensink, Wim A., de Vries, Annemieke, Breit, Timo M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4720430/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26789003
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145252
_version_ 1782411081872834560
author Bruning, Oskar
Rodenburg, Wendy
Wackers, Paul F. K.
van Oostrom, Conny
Jonker, Martijs J.
Dekker, Rob J.
Rauwerda, Han
Ensink, Wim A.
de Vries, Annemieke
Breit, Timo M.
author_facet Bruning, Oskar
Rodenburg, Wendy
Wackers, Paul F. K.
van Oostrom, Conny
Jonker, Martijs J.
Dekker, Rob J.
Rauwerda, Han
Ensink, Wim A.
de Vries, Annemieke
Breit, Timo M.
author_sort Bruning, Oskar
collection PubMed
description CONFOUNDING FACTORS: In transcriptomics experimentation, confounding factors frequently exist alongside the intended experimental factors and can severely influence the outcome of a transcriptome analysis. Confounding factors are regularly discussed in methodological literature, but their actual, practical impact on the outcome and interpretation of transcriptomics experiments is, to our knowledge, not documented. For instance, in-vivo experimental factors; like Individual, Sample-Composition and Time-of-Day are potentially formidable confounding factors. To study these confounding factors, we designed an extensive in-vivo transcriptome experiment (n = 264) with UVR exposure of murine skin containing six consecutive samples from each individual mouse (n = 64). ANALYSIS APPROACH: Evaluation of the confounding factors: Sample-Composition, Time-of-Day, Handling-Stress, and Individual-Mouse resulted in the identification of many genes that were affected by them. These genes sometimes showed over 30-fold expression differences. The most prominent confounding factor was Sample-Composition caused by mouse-dependent skin composition differences, sampling variation and/or influx/efflux of mobile cells. Although we can only evaluate these effects for known cell type specifically expressed genes in our complex heterogeneous samples, it is clear that the observed variations also affect the cumulative expression levels of many other non-cell-type-specific genes. ANOVA: ANOVA analysis can only attempt to neutralize the effects of the well-defined confounding factors, such as Individual-Mouse, on the experimental factors UV-Dose and Recovery-Time. Also, by definition, ANOVA only yields reproducible gene-expression differences, but we found that these differences were very small compared to the fold changes induced by the confounding factors, questioning the biological relevance of these ANOVA-detected differences. Furthermore, it turned out that many of the differentially expressed genes found by ANOVA were also present in the gene clusters associated with the confounding factors. CONCLUSION: Hence our overall conclusion is that confounding factors have a major impact on the outcome of in-vivo transcriptomics experiments. Thus the set-up, analysis, and interpretation of such experiments should be approached with the utmost prudence.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4720430
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47204302016-01-30 Confounding Factors in the Transcriptome Analysis of an In-Vivo Exposure Experiment Bruning, Oskar Rodenburg, Wendy Wackers, Paul F. K. van Oostrom, Conny Jonker, Martijs J. Dekker, Rob J. Rauwerda, Han Ensink, Wim A. de Vries, Annemieke Breit, Timo M. PLoS One Research Article CONFOUNDING FACTORS: In transcriptomics experimentation, confounding factors frequently exist alongside the intended experimental factors and can severely influence the outcome of a transcriptome analysis. Confounding factors are regularly discussed in methodological literature, but their actual, practical impact on the outcome and interpretation of transcriptomics experiments is, to our knowledge, not documented. For instance, in-vivo experimental factors; like Individual, Sample-Composition and Time-of-Day are potentially formidable confounding factors. To study these confounding factors, we designed an extensive in-vivo transcriptome experiment (n = 264) with UVR exposure of murine skin containing six consecutive samples from each individual mouse (n = 64). ANALYSIS APPROACH: Evaluation of the confounding factors: Sample-Composition, Time-of-Day, Handling-Stress, and Individual-Mouse resulted in the identification of many genes that were affected by them. These genes sometimes showed over 30-fold expression differences. The most prominent confounding factor was Sample-Composition caused by mouse-dependent skin composition differences, sampling variation and/or influx/efflux of mobile cells. Although we can only evaluate these effects for known cell type specifically expressed genes in our complex heterogeneous samples, it is clear that the observed variations also affect the cumulative expression levels of many other non-cell-type-specific genes. ANOVA: ANOVA analysis can only attempt to neutralize the effects of the well-defined confounding factors, such as Individual-Mouse, on the experimental factors UV-Dose and Recovery-Time. Also, by definition, ANOVA only yields reproducible gene-expression differences, but we found that these differences were very small compared to the fold changes induced by the confounding factors, questioning the biological relevance of these ANOVA-detected differences. Furthermore, it turned out that many of the differentially expressed genes found by ANOVA were also present in the gene clusters associated with the confounding factors. CONCLUSION: Hence our overall conclusion is that confounding factors have a major impact on the outcome of in-vivo transcriptomics experiments. Thus the set-up, analysis, and interpretation of such experiments should be approached with the utmost prudence. Public Library of Science 2016-01-20 /pmc/articles/PMC4720430/ /pubmed/26789003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145252 Text en © 2016 Bruning et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Bruning, Oskar
Rodenburg, Wendy
Wackers, Paul F. K.
van Oostrom, Conny
Jonker, Martijs J.
Dekker, Rob J.
Rauwerda, Han
Ensink, Wim A.
de Vries, Annemieke
Breit, Timo M.
Confounding Factors in the Transcriptome Analysis of an In-Vivo Exposure Experiment
title Confounding Factors in the Transcriptome Analysis of an In-Vivo Exposure Experiment
title_full Confounding Factors in the Transcriptome Analysis of an In-Vivo Exposure Experiment
title_fullStr Confounding Factors in the Transcriptome Analysis of an In-Vivo Exposure Experiment
title_full_unstemmed Confounding Factors in the Transcriptome Analysis of an In-Vivo Exposure Experiment
title_short Confounding Factors in the Transcriptome Analysis of an In-Vivo Exposure Experiment
title_sort confounding factors in the transcriptome analysis of an in-vivo exposure experiment
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4720430/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26789003
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145252
work_keys_str_mv AT bruningoskar confoundingfactorsinthetranscriptomeanalysisofaninvivoexposureexperiment
AT rodenburgwendy confoundingfactorsinthetranscriptomeanalysisofaninvivoexposureexperiment
AT wackerspaulfk confoundingfactorsinthetranscriptomeanalysisofaninvivoexposureexperiment
AT vanoostromconny confoundingfactorsinthetranscriptomeanalysisofaninvivoexposureexperiment
AT jonkermartijsj confoundingfactorsinthetranscriptomeanalysisofaninvivoexposureexperiment
AT dekkerrobj confoundingfactorsinthetranscriptomeanalysisofaninvivoexposureexperiment
AT rauwerdahan confoundingfactorsinthetranscriptomeanalysisofaninvivoexposureexperiment
AT ensinkwima confoundingfactorsinthetranscriptomeanalysisofaninvivoexposureexperiment
AT devriesannemieke confoundingfactorsinthetranscriptomeanalysisofaninvivoexposureexperiment
AT breittimom confoundingfactorsinthetranscriptomeanalysisofaninvivoexposureexperiment