Three-parameter lognormal distribution ubiquitously found in cDNA microarray data and its application to parametric data treatment

By Tomokazu Konishi. BMC Bioinformatics, 2004

420 citations recorded by the source corpus.

BackgroundTo cancel experimental variations, microarray data must be normalized prior to analysis. Where an appropriate model for statistical data distribution is available, a parametric method can normalize a group of data sets that have common distributions. Although such models have been proposed for microarray data, they have not always fit the distribution of real data and thus have been inappropriate for normalization. Consequently, microarray data in most cases have been normalized with non-parametric methods that adjust data in a pair-wise manner. However, data analysis and the integration of resultant knowledge among experiments have been difficult, since such normalization concepts lack a universal standard.ResultsA three-parameter lognormal distribution model was tested on over 300 sets of microarray data. The model treats the hybridization background, which is difficult to identify from images of hybridization, as one of the parameters. A rigorous coincidence of the model to data sets was found, proving the model's appropriateness for microarray data. In fact, a closer fitting to Northern analysis was obtained. The model showed inconsistency only at very strong or weak data intensities. Measurement of z-scores as well as calculated ratios was reproducible only among data in the model-consistent intensity range; also, the ratios were independent of signal intensity at the corresponding range.ConclusionThe model could provide a universal standard for data, simplifying data analysis and knowledge integration. It was deduced that the ranges of inconsistency were caused by experimental errors or additive noise in the data; therefore, excluding the data corresponding to those marginal ranges will prevent misleading analytical conclusions.

Subfields: Genetics, Molecular Biology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4446af067cc16ec6b6e5fa10eb52b712067b4fe0

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Genetics

In Molecular Biology

Citations in the corpus

The Pfam protein families database (2007, methodology): “For each Pfam-A family we now include a graphical representation of the HMM, using the ‘logomat-m’ software (20).”
Pfam: clans, web tools and services (2005, methodology): “HMM logos are graphical representations of an HMM, which allow the visualization of its distinguishing features (14).”
VANTED: A system for advanced data analysis and visualization in the context of biological networks (2006, methodology): “There are a number of tools which facilitate the editing and visualization of biological networks, among them BioMiner [8], PaVESy [9], VisANT [39], Patika [7], and Osprey [40].”
Less label, more free: Approaches in label‐free quantitative mass spectrometry (2011, methodology): “This program is based on a generalised linear mixed effects model (GLMM), as opposed to statistics concerned with signal to noise ratios that are used in the PLGEM statistic.”
High-fat diet alters gut microbiota physiology in mice (2013, methodology): “For the metaproteomic NSAF data set, the Bioconductor package PLGEM (Power Law Global Error Model) (Pavelka et al., 2004) was used to fit a PLGEM to the NSAF data set.”