Biostatistics Advance Access first published online on December 12, 2006
This version published online on May 18, 2007
Biostatistics, doi:10.1093/biostatistics/kxl041
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
When should one subtract background fluorescence in 2-color microarrays?
Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA rscharpf{at}jhsph.edu
Departments of Pathology and Oncology, The Sol Goldman Pancreatic Cancer Research Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
Department of Biochemistry, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Baltimore, MD, USA and Department of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Two-color microarrays are a powerful tool for genomic analysis, but have noise components that make inferences regarding gene expression inefficient and potentially misleading. Background fluorescence, whether attributable to nonspecific binding or other sources, is an important component of noise. The decision to subtract fluorescence surrounding spots of hybridization from spot fluorescence has been controversial, with no clear criteria for determining circumstances that may favor, or disfavor, background subtraction. While it is generally accepted that subtracting background reduces bias but increases variance in the estimates of the ratios of interest, no formal analysis of the bias–variance trade off of background subtraction has been undertaken. In this paper, we use simulation to systematically examine the bias–variance trade off under a variety of possible experimental conditions. Our simulation is based on data obtained from 2 self versus self microarray experiments and is free of distributional assumptions. Our results identify factors that are important for determining whether to background subtract, including the correlation of foreground to background intensity ratios. Using these results, we develop recommendations for diagnostic visualizations that can help decisions about background subtraction.
Keywords: Background substraction; Microarray
Received July 21, 2005; revised May 19, 2006; revised September 15, 2006; revised October 27, 2006; accepted for publication December 2, 2006.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. S.Q. Kortenhorst, M. Zahurak, S. Shabbeer, S. Kachhap, N. Galloway, G. Parmigiani, H. M.W. Verheul, and M. A. Carducci A Multiple-Loop, Double-Cube Microarray Design Applied to Prostate Cancer Cell Lines with Variable Sensitivity to Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors Clin. Cancer Res., November 1, 2008; 14(21): 6886 - 6894. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|