Published online 13 July 2006
© 2006 The Author(s)
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/uk/) which permits unrestricted non-commerical use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Methods Online |
Sequence biases in large scale gene expression profiling data
Canada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences Centre, British Columbia Cancer Research Centre, British Columbia Cancer Agency Vancouver, BC, Canada
*To whom correspondence should be addressed at Genome Sciences Centre, Suite 100, 570 West 7th Avenue, Vancouver BC, Canada V5Z 4S6. Tel: 604 877 6082; Fax: 604 877 6085; Email: mmarra{at}bcgsc.ca
Received February 17, 2006. Revised May 7, 2006. Accepted May 15, 2006.
We present the results of a simple, statistical assay that measures the G+C content sensitivity bias of gene expression experiments without the requirement of a duplicate experiment. We analyse five gene expression profiling methods: Affymetrix GeneChip, Long Serial Analysis of Gene Expression (LongSAGE), LongSAGELite, ‘Classic’ Massively Parallel Signature Sequencing (MPSS) and ‘Signature’ MPSS. We demonstrate the methods have systematic and random errors leading to a different G+C content sensitivity. The relationship between this experimental error and the G+C content of the probe set or tag that identifies each gene influences whether the gene is detected and, if detected, the level of gene expression measured. LongSAGE has the least bias, while Signature MPSS shows a strong bias to G+C rich tags and Affymetrix data show different bias depending on the data processing method (MAS 5.0, RMA or GC-RMA). The bias in the Affymetrix data primarily impacts genes expressed at lower levels. Despite the larger sampling of the MPSS library, SAGE identifies significantly more genes (60% more RefSeq genes in a single comparison).
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. C. Dohm, C. Lottaz, T. Borodina, and H. Himmelbauer Substantial biases in ultra-short read data sets from high-throughput DNA sequencing Nucleic Acids Res., July 26, 2008; (2008) gkn425v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. K. Chan, O. L. Griffith, I. T. Tai, and S. J.M. Jones Meta-analysis of Colorectal Cancer Gene Expression Profiling Studies Identifies Consistently Reported Candidate Biomarkers Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., March 1, 2008; 17(3): 543 - 552. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Barrett, D. B. Troup, S. E. Wilhite, P. Ledoux, D. Rudnev, C. Evangelista, I. F. Kim, A. Soboleva, M. Tomashevsky, and R. Edgar NCBI GEO: mining tens of millions of expression profiles--database and tools update Nucleic Acids Res., January 12, 2007; 35(suppl_1): D760 - D765. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|