4.7 Article

Characterization of variability in large-scale gene expression data: Implications for study design

Journal

GENOMICS
Volume 79, Issue 1, Pages 104-113

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1006/geno.2001.6675

Keywords

oligonucleotide microarrays; gene expression microarray analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Large-scale gene expression measurement techniques provide a unique opportunity to gain insight into biological processes under normal and pathological conditions. To interpret the changes in expression profiles for thousands of genes, we face the nontrivial problem of understanding the significance of these changes. In practice, the sources of background variability in expression data can be divided into three categories: technical, physiological, and sampling. To assess the relative importance of these sources of background variation, we generated replicate gene expression profiles on high-density Affymetrix GeneChip oligonucleotide arrays, using either identical RNA samples or RNA samples obtained under similar biological states. We derived a novel measure of dispersion in two-way comparisons, using a linear characteristic function. When comparing expression profiles from replicate tests using the same RNA sample (a test for technical variability), we observed a level of dispersion similar to the pattern obtained with RNA samples from replicate cultures of the same cell line (a test for physiological variability). On the other hand, a higher level of dispersion was observed when tissue samples of different animals were compared (an example of sampling variability). This implies that, in experiments in which samples from different subjects are used, the variation induced by the stimulus may be masked by non-stimuli-related differences in the subjects' biological state. These analyses underscore the need for replica experiments to reliably interpret large-scale expression data sets, even with simple microarray experiments.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available