The strength and weakness of microarray technology can be attributed to the enormous amount of information it is generating. To fully enhance the benefit of microarray technology for testing differentially expressed genes and classification, there is a need to minimize the amount of irrelevant genes present in microarray data. A major interest is to use probe-level data to call genes informative or noninformative based on the trade-off between the array-to-array variability and the measurement error. Existing works in this direction include filtering likely uninformative sets of hybridization (FLUSH; Calza et al., 2007) and I/NI calls for the exclusion of noninformative genes using FARMS (I/NI calls; Talloen et al., 2007; Hochreiter et al., 2006). In this paper, we propose a linear mixed model as a more flexible method that performs equally good as I/NI calls and outperforms FLUSH. We also introduce other criteria for gene filtering, such as, R2 and intra-cluster correlation. Additionally, we include some objective criteria based on likelihood ratio testing, the Akaike information criteria (AIC; Akaike, 1973) and the Bayesian information criterion (BIC; Schwarz, 1978 ).Based on the HGU-133A Spiked-in data set, it is shown that the linear mixed model approach outperforms FLUSH, a method that filters genes based on a quantile regression. The linear model is equivalent to a factor analysis model when either the factor loadings are set to a constant with the variance of the latent factor equal to one, or if the factor loadings are set to one together with unconstrained variance of the latent factor. Filtering based on conditional variance calls a probe set informative when the intensity of one or more probes is consistent across the arrays, while filtering using R2 or intra-cluster correlation calls a probe set informative only when average intensity of a probe set is consistent across the arrays. Filtering based on likelihood ratio test AIC and BIC are less stringent compared to the other criteria.
[1]
Klaus Obermayer,et al.
A new summarization method for affymetrix probe level data
,
2006,
Bioinform..
[2]
S. Dudoit,et al.
Comparison of Discrimination Methods for the Classification of Tumors Using Gene Expression Data
,
2002
.
[3]
Hinrich W. H. Göhlmann,et al.
I/NI-calls for the exclusion of non-informative genes: a highly effective filtering tool for microarray data
,
2007,
Bioinform..
[4]
G. Molenberghs,et al.
Linear Mixed Models for Longitudinal Data
,
2001
.
[5]
G. Schwarz.
Estimating the Dimension of a Model
,
1978
.
[6]
Monnie McGee,et al.
New Spiked-In Probe Sets for the Affymetrix HGU-133A Latin Square Experiment
,
2006
.
[7]
A. Orth,et al.
Large-scale analysis of the human and mouse transcriptomes
,
2002,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
[8]
H. Akaike,et al.
Information Theory and an Extension of the Maximum Likelihood Principle
,
1973
.
[9]
Yudi Pawitan,et al.
Filtering genes to improve sensitivity in oligonucleotide microarray data analysis.
,
2007,
Nucleic acids research.
[10]
Y. Benjamini,et al.
Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing
,
1995
.
[11]
David R. Anderson,et al.
Model selection and multimodel inference : a practical information-theoretic approach
,
2003
.