Advertisement

Study Design in DIGE-Based Biomarker Discovery

  • Alexandra Graf
  • Rudolf OehlerEmail author
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 854)

Abstract

The DIGE technology allows the detection of small differences in the expression level of abundant proteins. Many diseases are associated with quantitative deviations of proteins which might represent useful biomarkers for diagnosis or prognosis. DIGE is therefore a highly convenient method for the characterization of disease-related expression changes. This chapter focuses on the study design in DIGE-based biomarker discovery. It introduces the statistical implications of testing thousands of proteins in parallel and discusses the solutions proposed by the literature. The outline provided in the method section tries to guide the researcher through the different statistical considerations, which have to be taken into account in biomarker detection. Special emphasis is given to the use of sample sizes of sufficient statistical power and to the statistical evaluation of the results.

Key words

Sample size calculation Power calculation Clinical proteomics Biomarker research Study design DIGE 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Sonja Zehetmayer for helpful comments.

References

  1. 1.
    Bossuyt, P.M., et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. Clin Chem 49, 1–6 (2003).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    McShane, L.M., et al. Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies. J Clin Oncol 23, 9067–9072 (2005).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mischak, H., et al. Recommendations for biomarker identification and qualification in clinical proteomics. Sci Transl Med 2, 46ps42 (2010).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dudoit, S., Shaffer, J. & Boldrick, J. Multiple hypothesis testing in microarray experiments. Statistical Science 18, 71–103 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shaffer, J.P. Multiple Hypothesis Testing. Annual Review of Psychology 46, 561–584 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate—A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 57, 289–300 (1995).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Benjamini, Y. & Yekutieli, D. The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. The Annals of Statistics 29, 1165–1188 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Storey, J.D. A direct approach to false discovery rate. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 64, 479–498 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Storey, J.D., Taylor, J.E. & Siegmund, D. Strong control, conservative point estimation and simultaneous conservative consistency of false discovery rates: a unified approach. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 66, 187–205 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pawitan Y., Michiels, S., Koscielny, S., Gusnanto, A. & Ploner, A. False discovery rate, sensitivity and sample size for microarray studies. Bioinformatics 21, 3017–3024 (2005).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jung, S.H. Sample size for FDR-control in microarray data analysis. Bioinformatics 21, 3079–3104 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Petrak, J., et al. Deja vu in proteomics. A hit parade of repeatedly identified differentially expressed proteins. Proteomics 8, 1744–1749 (2008).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Unlu, M., Morgan, M.E. & Minden, J.S. Difference gel electrophoresis: a single gel method for detecting changes in protein extracts. Electrophoresis 18, 2071–2077 (1997).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Directorate-General-Health-and-Consumer-Protection. Guidance for generating and reporting methods of analysis in support of pre-registration data requirements. Vol. Annex II (part A, Section 4) and Annex III (part A, Section 5) of Directive 91/414. (ed. EUROPEAN-COMMISSION) (Brussels, BE, 2000).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Biopharmaceutics-Coordinating-Committee. Guidance for Industry: Bioanalytical Method Validation. (ed. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, F.a.D.A., Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM)) (Rockville MD 2057, USA, 2001).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Section of Medical Statistics, Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent SystemsMedical University of ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryMedical University of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations