Published online 17 March 2004
Nucleic Acids Research, 2004, Vol. 32, No. 5 e50
© 2004 Oxford University Press
Microarray segmentation methods significantly influence data precision
Cancer Genomics Program, Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Hutchison/MRC Research Centre, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 2XZ, UK
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: +44 1223 763119; Fax: +44 1223 331753; Email: jdb1003{at}cam.ac.uk
Little consideration has been given to the effect of different segmentation methods on the variability of data derived from microarray images. Previous work has suggested that the significant source of variability from microarray image analysis is from estimation of local background. In this study, we used Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) models to investigate the effect of methods of segmentation on the precision of measurements obtained from replicate microarray experiments. We used four different methods of spot segmentation (adaptive, fixed circle, histogram and GenePix) to analyse a total number of 156 172 spots from 12 microarray experiments. Using a two-way ANOVA model and the coefficient of repeatability, we show that the method of segmentation significantly affects the precision of the microarray data. The histogram method gave the lowest variability across replicate spots compared to other methods, and had the lowest pixel-to-pixel variability within spots. This effect on precision was independent of background subtraction. We show that these findings have direct, practical implications as the variability in precision between the four methods resulted in different numbers of genes being identified as differentially expressed. Segmentation method is an important source of variability in microarray data that directly affects precision and the identification of differentially expressed genes.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  T. Tang, N. Francois, A. Glatigny, N. Agier, M.-H. Mucchielli, L. Aggerbeck, and H. Delacroix Expression ratio evaluation in two-colour microarray experiments is significantly improved by correcting image misalignment Bioinformatics, October 15, 2007; 23(20): 2686 - 2691. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Daskalakis, D. Cavouras, P. Bougioukos, S. Kostopoulos, D. Glotsos, I. Kalatzis, G. C. Kagadis, C. Argyropoulos, and G. Nikiforidis Improving gene quantification by adjustable spot-image restoration Bioinformatics, September 1, 2007; 23(17): 2265 - 2272. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Lehmussola, P. Ruusuvuori, and O. Yli-Harja Evaluating the performance of microarray segmentation algorithms Bioinformatics, December 1, 2006; 22(23): 2910 - 2917. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. Underhill-Day and J. K. Heath Oncostatin M (OSM) Cytostasis of Breast Tumor Cells: Characterization of an OSM Receptor {beta}-Specific Kernel. Cancer Res., November 15, 2006; 66(22): 10891 - 10901. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. D. Brenton, L. A. Carey, A. A. Ahmed, and C. Caldas Molecular Classification and Molecular Forecasting of Breast Cancer: Ready for Clinical Application? J. Clin. Oncol., October 10, 2005; 23(29): 7350 - 7360. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
O. Demirkaya, M. H. Asyali, and M. M. Shoukri Segmentation of cDNA Microarray Spots Using Markov Random Field Modeling Bioinformatics, July 1, 2005; 21(13): 2994 - 3000. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q. Li, C. Fraley, R. E. Bumgarner, K. Y. Yeung, and A. E. Raftery Donuts, scratches and blanks: robust model-based segmentation of microarray images Bioinformatics, June 15, 2005; 21(12): 2875 - 2882. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|