Dataset Information

Multiplatform single-sample estimates of transcriptional activation.

ABSTRACT: Over the past two decades, many biotechnology platforms have been developed for high-throughput gene expression profiling. However, because each platform is subject to technology-specific biases and produces distinct raw-data distributions, researchers have experienced difficulty in integrating data across platforms. Data integration is crucial to data-generating consortiums, researchers transitioning to newer profiling technologies, and individuals seeking to aggregate data across experiments. We address this need with our Universal exPression Code (UPC) approach, which corrects for platform-specific background noise using models that account for the genomic base composition and length of target regions; this approach also uses a mixture model to estimate whether a gene is active in a particular profiling sample. The latter produces standardized UPC values on a zero-to-one scale, so that they can be interpreted consistently, irrespective of profiling technology, thus enabling downstream analysis pipelines to be developed in a platform-agnostic manner. The UPC method can be applied to one- and two-channel expression microarrays and to next-generation sequencing data (RNA sequencing). Furthermore, UPCs are derived using information from within a given sample only--no ancillary samples are required at processing time. Thus, UPCs are suitable for personalized-medicine workflows where samples must be processed individually rather than in batches. In a variety of analyses and comparisons, UPCs perform comparably to other methods designed specifically for microarrays or RNA sequencing in most settings. Software for calculating UPCs is freely available at www.bioconductor.org/packages/release/bioc/html/SCAN.UPC.html.

SUBMITTER: Piccolo SR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3816418 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Multiplatform single-sample estimates of transcriptional activation.

Piccolo Stephen R SR Withers Michelle R MR Francis Owen E OE Bild Andrea H AH Johnson W Evan WE

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 20131015 44

Over the past two decades, many biotechnology platforms have been developed for high-throughput gene expression profiling. However, because each platform is subject to technology-specific biases and produces distinct raw-data distributions, researchers have experienced difficulty in integrating data across platforms. Data integration is crucial to data-generating consortiums, researchers transitioning to newer profiling technologies, and individuals seeking to aggregate data across experiments. ...[more]

PMID: 24128763

Similar Datasets

Project description:Sample size is a critical aspect of study design in population genomics research, yet few empirical studies have examined the impacts of small sample sizes. We used datasets from eight diverging bird lineages to make pairwise comparisons at different levels of taxonomic divergence (populations, subspecies, and species). Our data are from loci linked to ultraconserved elements and our analyses used one single nucleotide polymorphism per locus. All individuals were genotyped at all loci, effectively doubling sample size for coalescent analyses. We estimated population demographic parameters (effective population size, migration rate, and time since divergence) in a coalescent framework using Diffusion Approximation for Demographic Inference, an allele frequency spectrum method. Using divergence-with-gene-flow models optimized with full datasets, we subsampled at sequentially smaller sample sizes from full datasets of 6-8 diploid individuals per population (with both alleles called) down to 1:1, and then we compared estimates and their changes in accuracy. Accuracy was strongly affected by sample size, with considerable differences among estimated parameters and among lineages. Effective population size parameters (?) tended to be underestimated at low sample sizes (fewer than three diploid individuals per population, or 6:6 haplotypes in coalescent terms). Migration (m) was fairly consistently estimated until <2 individuals per population, and no consistent trend of over-or underestimation was found in either time since divergence (T) or theta (? = 4N ref?). Lineages that were taxonomically recognized above the population level (subspecies and species pairs; that is, deeper divergences) tended to have lower variation in scaled root mean square error of parameter estimation at smaller sample sizes than population-level divergences, and many parameters were estimated accurately down to three diploid individuals per population. Shallower divergence levels (i.e., populations) often required at least five individuals per population for reliable demographic inferences using this approach. Although divergence levels might be unknown at the outset of study design, our results provide a framework for planning appropriate sampling and for interpreting results if smaller sample sizes must be used.

Project description:Robust maximum likelihood (RML) and asymptotically generalized least squares (AGLS) methods have been recommended for fitting ordinal structural equation models. Studies show that some of these methods underestimate standard errors. However, these studies have not investigated the coverage and bias of interval estimates. An estimate with a reasonable standard error could still be severely biased. This can only be known by systematically investigating the interval estimates. The present study compares Bayesian, RML, and AGLS interval estimates of factor correlations in ordinal confirmatory factor analysis models (CFA) for small sample data. Six sample sizes, 3 factor correlations, and 2 factor score distributions (multivariate normal and multivariate mildly skewed) were studied. Two Bayesian prior specifications, informative and relatively less informative were studied. Undercoverage of confidence intervals and underestimation of standard errors was common in non-Bayesian methods. Underestimated standard errors may lead to inflated Type-I error rates. Non-Bayesian intervals were more positive biased than negatively biased, that is, most intervals that did not contain the true value were greater than the true value. Some non-Bayesian methods had non-converging and inadmissible solutions for small samples and non-normal data. Bayesian empirical standard error estimates for informative and relatively less informative priors were closer to the average standard errors of the estimates. The coverage of Bayesian credibility intervals was closer to what was expected with overcoverage in a few cases. Although some Bayesian credibility intervals were wider, they reflected the nature of statistical uncertainty that comes with the data (e.g., small sample). Bayesian point estimates were also more accurate than non-Bayesian estimates. The results illustrate the importance of analyzing coverage and bias of interval estimates, and how ignoring interval estimates can be misleading. Therefore, editors and policymakers should continue to emphasize the inclusion of interval estimates in research.

Dataset Information

Multiplatform single-sample estimates of transcriptional activation.

Publications

Multiplatform single-sample estimates of transcriptional activation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets