Abstract
With genome-wide gene expression microarrays being increasingly applied in various areas of biomedical research, the diversity of platforms and analytical methods has made comparison of data from multiple platforms very challenging. In this chapter, we describe a generalized framework for systematic comparisons across gene expression profiling platforms, which could accommodate both the available commercial arrays and “in-house” platforms, with both one-dye and two-dye platforms. It includes experimental design, data preprocessing protocols, cross-platform gene matching approaches, measures of data consistency comparisons, and considerations in biological validation. In the design of this framework, we considered the variety of platforms available, the need for uniform quality control procedures, real-world practical limitations, statistical validity, and the need for flexibility and extensibility of the framework. Using this framework, we studied ten diverse microarray platforms, and we conclude that using probe sequences matched at the exon level is important to improve cross-platform data consistency compared to annotation-based matches. Generally, consistency was good for highly expressed genes, and variable for genes with lower expression values, as confirmed by QRT-PCR. After stringent preprocessing, commercial arrays were more consistent than “in-house” arrays, and by most measures, one-dye platforms were more consistent than two-dye platforms.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bauer JW, Bilgic H, Baechler EC (2009) Gene-expression profiling in rheumatic disease: tools and therapeutic potential. Nat Rev Rheumatol 5:257–265.
Cheang MC, van de Rijn M, Nielsen TO (2008) Gene expression profiling of breast cancer. Annu Rev Pathol 3:67–97.
Garcia-Escudero R, Paramio JM (2008) Gene expression profiling as a tool for basic analysis and clinical application of human cancer. Mol Carcinog 47:573–579.
Giordano TJ (2008) Transcriptome analysis of endocrine tumors: clinical perspectives. Ann Endocrinol (Paris) 69:130–134.
Yauk CL, Berndt ML (2007) Review of the literature examining the correlation among DNA microarray technologies. Environ Mol Mutagen 48:380–394.
Kuo WP, Liu F, Trimarchi J et al (2006) A sequence-oriented comparison of gene expression measurements across different hybridization-based technologies. Nat Biotechnol 24:832–840.
Brazma A (2009) Minimum Information About a Microarray Experiment (MIAME) – successes, failures, challenges. Scientific World Journal 9:420–423.
Brazma A, Hingamp P, Quackenbush J et al (2001) Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME) – toward standards for microarray data. Nat Genet 29:365–371.
MIAME. (Minimum Information About a Microarray Experiment) http://www.mged.org/Workgroups/MIAME/miame.html.
Baker SC, Bauer SR, Beyer RP et al (2005) The External RNA Controls Consortium: a progress report. Nat Methods 2:731–734.
ERCC. (The External RNA Controls Consortium) http://www.cstl.nist.gov/biotech/Cell&TissueMeasurements/GeneExpression/ERCC.htm.
Shi L, Reid LH, Jones WD et al (2006) The MicroArray Quality Control (MAQC) project shows inter- and intraplatform reproducibility of gene expression measurements. Nat Biotechnol 24:1151–1161.
MAQC. (Microarray Quality Control) http://www.fda.gov/nctr/science/centers/toxicoinformatics/maqc/.
Enkemann SA (2010) Standards affecting the consistency of gene expression arrays in clinical applications. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 19:1000–1003.
GEO. (Gene Expression Omnibus) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/.
The Cepko Laboratory at Harvard Medical School (http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/~cepko/).
Carter SL, Eklund AC, Mecham BH et al (2005) Redefinition of Affymetrix probe sets by sequence overlap with cDNA microarray probes reduces cross-platform inconsistencies in cancer-associated gene expression measurements. BMC Bioinformatics 6:107.
Mecham BH, Klus GT, Strovel J et al (2004) Sequence-matched probes produce increased cross-platform consistency and more reproducible biological results in microarray-based gene expression measurements. Nucleic Acids Res 32:e74.
Mecham BH, Wetmore DZ, Szallasi Z et al (2004) Increased measurement accuracy for sequence-verified microarray probes. Physiol Genomics 18:308–315.
Lee ML, Kuo FC, Whitmore GA et al (2000) Importance of replication in microarray gene expression studies: statistical methods and evidence from repetitive cDNA hybridizations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 97:9834–9839.
The R Project for Statistical Computing: http://www.r-project.org/.
Pounds S, Cheng C (2005) Statistical development and evaluation of microarray gene expression data filters. J Comput Biol 12:482–495.
Shippy R, Sendera TJ, Lockner R et al (2004) Performance evaluation of commercial short-oligonucleotide microarrays and the impact of noise in making cross-platform correlations. BMC Genomics 5:61.
Berger JA, Hautaniemi S, Jarvinen AK et al (2004) Optimized LOWESS normalization parameter selection for DNA microarray data. BMC Bioinformatics 5:194.
Bolstad BM, Irizarry RA, Astrand M et al (2003) A comparison of normalization methods for high density oligonucleotide array data based on variance and bias. Bioinformatics 19:185–193.
Workman C, Jensen LJ, Jarmer H et al (2002) A new non-linear normalization method for reducing variability in DNA microarray experiments. Genome Biol 3: research0048.
Bussey KJ, Kane D, Sunshine M et al (2003) MatchMiner: a tool for batch navigation among gene and gene product identifiers. Genome Biol 4:R27.
Kent WJ (2002) BLAT – the BLAST-like alignment tool. Genome Res 12:656–664.
UCSC Genome Site: http://www.genomearchive.cse.ucsc.edu/goldenPath/mmFeb2003/bigZips/.
Liu G, Loraine AE, Shigeta R et al (2003) NetAffx: Affymetrix probesets and annotations. Nucleic Acids Res 31:82–86.
Irizarry RA, Warren D, Spencer F et al (2005) Multiple-laboratory comparison of microarray platforms. Nat Methods 2:345–350.
Stratagene: http://www.stratagene.com/manuals/740000.pdf.
Blackshaw S, Fraioli RE, Furukawa T et al (2001) Comprehensive analysis of photoreceptor gene expression and the identification of candidate retinal disease genes. Cell 107:579–589.
Blackshaw S, Harpavat S, Trimarchi J et al (2004) Genomic analysis of mouse retinal development. PLoS Biol 2:E247.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank all the microarray vendors and facilities/laboratories which have actively participated this large-scale study. The authors were supported by the functional genomics program (FUGE) in the Research council of Norway for this work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this protocol
Cite this protocol
Liu, F., Kuo, W.P., Jenssen, TK., Hovig, E. (2012). Performance Comparison of Multiple Microarray Platforms for Gene Expression Profiling. In: Wang, J., Tan, A., Tian, T. (eds) Next Generation Microarray Bioinformatics. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 802. Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61779-400-1_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61779-400-1_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Humana Press
Print ISBN: 978-1-61779-399-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-61779-400-1
eBook Packages: Springer Protocols