Local false discovery rate facilitates comparison of different microarray experiments

The local false discovery rate (LFDR) estimates the probability of falsely identifying specific genes with changes in expression. In computer simulations, LFDR <10% successfully identified genes with changes in expression, while LFDR >90% identified genes without changes. We used LFDR to compare different microarray experiments quantitatively: (i) Venn diagrams of genes with and without changes in expression, (ii) scatter plots of the genes, (iii) correlation coefficients in the scatter plots and (iv) distributions of gene function. To illustrate, we compared three methods for pre-processing microarray data. Correlations between methods were high (r = 0.84–0.92). However, responses were often different in magnitude, and sometimes discordant, even though the methods used the same raw data. LFDR complements functional assessments like gene set enrichment analysis. To illustrate, we compared responses to ultraviolet radiation (UV), ionizing radiation (IR) and tobacco smoke. Compared to unresponsive genes, genes responsive to both UV and IR were enriched for cell cycle, mitosis, and DNA repair functions. Genes responsive to UV but not IR were depleted for cell adhesion functions. Genes responsive to tobacco smoke were enriched for detoxification functions. Thus, LFDR reveals differences and similarities among experiments.

[1]  Yoav Benjamini,et al.  Identifying differentially expressed genes using false discovery rate controlling procedures , 2003, Bioinform..

[2]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .

[3]  A. Hartmann,et al.  (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/path.2039 , 2006 .

[4]  John D. Storey,et al.  Statistical significance for genomewide studies , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[5]  Rafael A. Irizarry,et al.  A Model-Based Background Adjustment for Oligonucleotide Expression Arrays , 2004 .

[6]  Gilbert Chu,et al.  Portrait of transcriptional responses to ultraviolet and ionizing radiation in human cells. , 2004, Nucleic acids research.

[7]  F. Curriero,et al.  Expression of cytochromes P450 1A1 and 1B1 in human lung from smokers, non-smokers, and ex-smokers. , 2004, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[8]  Pablo Tamayo,et al.  Gene set enrichment analysis: A knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  Debashis Ghosh,et al.  Prognostic meta-signature of breast cancer developed by two-stage mixture modeling of microarray data , 2004, BMC Genomics.

[10]  C. Gilks,et al.  Antioxidant gene expression in rat lung after exposure to cigarette smoke. , 1998, The American journal of pathology.

[11]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Significance analysis of microarrays applied to the ionizing radiation response , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[12]  Eivind Hovig,et al.  Stitchprofiles.uio.no: analysis of partly melted DNA conformations using stitch profiles , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[13]  Stephan Gebel,et al.  Kinetics of gene expression profiling in Swiss 3T3 cells exposed to aqueous extracts of cigarette smoke. , 2002, Carcinogenesis.

[14]  James O. Ramsay,et al.  Applied Functional Data Analysis: Methods and Case Studies , 2002 .

[15]  Rainer Spang,et al.  twilight; a Bioconductor package for estimating the local false discovery rate , 2005, Bioinform..

[16]  Kevin R. Coombes,et al.  Differences in gene expression between B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia and normal B cells: a meta-analysis of three microarray studies , 2004, Bioinform..

[17]  Yudi Pawitan,et al.  Multidimensional local false discovery rate for microarray studies , 2006, Bioinform..

[18]  Avrum Spira,et al.  SIEGE: Smoking Induced Epithelial Gene Expression Database , 2004, Nucleic Acids Res..

[19]  Nadarajah Vigneswaran,et al.  Cigarette smoke condensate induces cytochromes P450 and aldo-keto reductases in oral cancer cells. , 2006, Toxicology letters.

[20]  R J Edwards,et al.  Expression of CYP1A1, CYP1B1 and CYP3A, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon‐DNA adduct formation in bronchoalveolar macrophages of smokers and non‐smokers , 2000, International journal of cancer.

[21]  Jean-Jacques Daudin,et al.  Correction: Determination of the differentially expressed genes in microarray experiments using local FDR , 2005, BMC Bioinformatics.

[22]  C. Li,et al.  Model-based analysis of oligonucleotide arrays: expression index computation and outlier detection. , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[23]  B. Efron Large-Scale Simultaneous Hypothesis Testing , 2004 .

[24]  D. Botstein,et al.  Cluster analysis and display of genome-wide expression patterns. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[25]  Rafael A. Irizarry,et al.  Stochastic models inspired by hybridization theory for short oligonucleotide arrays , 2004, J. Comput. Biol..

[26]  Weichung Joe Shih,et al.  A mixture model for estimating the local false discovery rate in DNA microarray analysis , 2004, Bioinform..

[27]  John D. Storey A direct approach to false discovery rates , 2002 .