Next Generation Microarray Bioinformatics pp 141-155

Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 802) | Cite as

Performance Comparison of Multiple Microarray Platforms for Gene Expression Profiling

  • Fang Liu
  • Winston P. Kuo
  • Tor-Kristian Jenssen
  • Eivind Hovig
Protocol

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.

Key words

Microarray Gene expression profiling Bioinformatics Data consistency Probe matching 

References

  1. 1.
    Bauer JW, Bilgic H, Baechler EC (2009) Gene-expression profiling in rheumatic disease: tools and therapeutic potential. Nat Rev Rheumatol 5:257–265.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cheang MC, van de Rijn M, Nielsen TO (2008) Gene expression profiling of breast cancer. Annu Rev Pathol 3:67–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Giordano TJ (2008) Transcriptome analysis of endocrine tumors: clinical perspectives. Ann Endocrinol (Paris) 69:130–134.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yauk CL, Berndt ML (2007) Review of the literature examining the correlation among DNA microarray technologies. Environ Mol Mutagen 48:380–394.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brazma A (2009) Minimum Information About a Microarray Experiment (MIAME) – successes, failures, challenges. Scientific World Journal 9:420–423.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    MIAME. (Minimum Information About a Microarray Experiment) http://www.mged.org/Workgroups/MIAME/miame.html.
  10. 10.
    Baker SC, Bauer SR, Beyer RP et al (2005) The External RNA Controls Consortium: a progress report. Nat Methods 2:731–734.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    Enkemann SA (2010) Standards affecting the consistency of gene expression arrays in clinical applications. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 19:1000–1003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    GEO. (Gene Expression Omnibus) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/.
  16. 16.
    The Cepko Laboratory at Harvard Medical School (http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/~cepko/).
  17. 17.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mecham BH, Wetmore DZ, Szallasi Z et al (2004) Increased measurement accuracy for sequence-verified microarray probes. Physiol Genomics 18:308–315.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    The R Project for Statistical Computing: http://www.r-project.org/.
  22. 22.
    Pounds S, Cheng C (2005) Statistical development and evaluation of microarray gene expression data filters. J Comput Biol 12:482–495.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Berger JA, Hautaniemi S, Jarvinen AK et al (2004) Optimized LOWESS normalization parameter selection for DNA microarray data. BMC Bioinformatics 5:194.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kent WJ (2002) BLAT – the BLAST-like alignment tool. Genome Res 12:656–664.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
    Liu G, Loraine AE, Shigeta R et al (2003) NetAffx: Affymetrix probesets and annotations. Nucleic Acids Res 31:82–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Irizarry RA, Warren D, Spencer F et al (2005) Multiple-laboratory comparison of microarray platforms. Nat Methods 2:345–350.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
  33. 33.
  34. 34.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Blackshaw S, Harpavat S, Trimarchi J et al (2004) Genomic analysis of mouse retinal development. PLoS Biol 2:E247.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fang Liu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Winston P. Kuo
    • 3
    • 4
  • Tor-Kristian Jenssen
    • 2
  • Eivind Hovig
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Tumor BiologyInstitute for Cancer Research, Norwegian Radium HospitalMontebelloNorway
  2. 2.PubGene ASVinderenNorway
  3. 3.Harvard Catalyst – Laboratory for Innovative TranslationalTechnologies, Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Developmental BiologyHarvard School of Dental MedicineBostonUSA
  5. 5.Departments of Tumor Biology and Medical InformaticsInstitute for Cancer Research, Norwegian Radium HospitalMontebelloNorway

Personalised recommendations