Cargando…
Critique of the pairwise method for estimating qPCR amplification efficiency: beware of correlated data!
BACKGROUND: A recently proposed method for estimating qPCR amplification efficiency E analyzes fluorescence intensity ratios from pairs of points deemed to lie in the exponential growth region on the amplification curves for all reactions in a dilution series. This method suffers from a serious prob...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7346608/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32640980 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-020-03604-4 |
_version_ | 1783556431463579648 |
---|---|
author | Tellinghuisen, Joel |
author_facet | Tellinghuisen, Joel |
author_sort | Tellinghuisen, Joel |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: A recently proposed method for estimating qPCR amplification efficiency E analyzes fluorescence intensity ratios from pairs of points deemed to lie in the exponential growth region on the amplification curves for all reactions in a dilution series. This method suffers from a serious problem: The resulting ratios are highly correlated, as they involve multiple use of the raw data, for example, yielding ~ 250 E estimates from ~ 25 intensity readings. The resulting statistics for such estimates are falsely optimistic in their assessment of the estimation precision. RESULTS: Monte Carlo simulations confirm that the correlated pairs method yields precision estimates that are better than actual by a factor of two or more. This result is further supported by estimating E by both pairwise and C(q) calibration methods for the 16 replicate datasets from the critiqued work, and then comparing the ensemble statistics for these methods. CONCLUSION: Contrary to assertions in the proposing work, the pairwise method does not yield E estimates a factor of 2 more precise than estimates from C(q) calibration fitting (the standard curve method). On the other hand, the statistically correct direct fit of the data to the model behind the pairwise method can yield E estimates of comparable precision. Ways in which the approach might be improved are discussed briefly. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7346608 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73466082020-07-14 Critique of the pairwise method for estimating qPCR amplification efficiency: beware of correlated data! Tellinghuisen, Joel BMC Bioinformatics Methodology Article BACKGROUND: A recently proposed method for estimating qPCR amplification efficiency E analyzes fluorescence intensity ratios from pairs of points deemed to lie in the exponential growth region on the amplification curves for all reactions in a dilution series. This method suffers from a serious problem: The resulting ratios are highly correlated, as they involve multiple use of the raw data, for example, yielding ~ 250 E estimates from ~ 25 intensity readings. The resulting statistics for such estimates are falsely optimistic in their assessment of the estimation precision. RESULTS: Monte Carlo simulations confirm that the correlated pairs method yields precision estimates that are better than actual by a factor of two or more. This result is further supported by estimating E by both pairwise and C(q) calibration methods for the 16 replicate datasets from the critiqued work, and then comparing the ensemble statistics for these methods. CONCLUSION: Contrary to assertions in the proposing work, the pairwise method does not yield E estimates a factor of 2 more precise than estimates from C(q) calibration fitting (the standard curve method). On the other hand, the statistically correct direct fit of the data to the model behind the pairwise method can yield E estimates of comparable precision. Ways in which the approach might be improved are discussed briefly. BioMed Central 2020-07-08 /pmc/articles/PMC7346608/ /pubmed/32640980 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-020-03604-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Methodology Article Tellinghuisen, Joel Critique of the pairwise method for estimating qPCR amplification efficiency: beware of correlated data! |
title | Critique of the pairwise method for estimating qPCR amplification efficiency: beware of correlated data! |
title_full | Critique of the pairwise method for estimating qPCR amplification efficiency: beware of correlated data! |
title_fullStr | Critique of the pairwise method for estimating qPCR amplification efficiency: beware of correlated data! |
title_full_unstemmed | Critique of the pairwise method for estimating qPCR amplification efficiency: beware of correlated data! |
title_short | Critique of the pairwise method for estimating qPCR amplification efficiency: beware of correlated data! |
title_sort | critique of the pairwise method for estimating qpcr amplification efficiency: beware of correlated data! |
topic | Methodology Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7346608/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32640980 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-020-03604-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tellinghuisenjoel critiqueofthepairwisemethodforestimatingqpcramplificationefficiencybewareofcorrelateddata |