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