1
Probe analysis and data preprocessing1. Affymetrix Probe level analysis
1) NormalizationConstant, Loess, Rank invariant, Quantile normalization
2) Expression measureMAS 4.0, LI-Wong (dChip), MAS 5.0, RMA
3) Background adjustmentPM-MM, PM only, RMA, GC-RMA
2. Statistical analysis of cDNA array1) Image analysis2) Normalization3) Assess expression level
(A case study with Bayesian hierarchical model)
4) Experimental designSource of variations; Calibration and replicate; Choice of reference sample; Design of two-color array
3. Preprocessing1) Data transformation2) Filtering (in all platforms)3) Missing value imputation (in all platforms)
2
From experiment to down-stream analysis
3
Experimental designImage analysis
Preprocessing(Normalization, filtering,
MV imputation)
Data visualization
Identify differentially expressed genes
Regulatory network
Clustering Classification
Statistical Issues in Microarray Analysis
Pathwayanalysis
Integrative analysis & meta-analysis
4
Data Preprocessing
Preliminary analyses extract and summarize information from the microarray experiments. • These steps are irrelevant to biological discovery • But are for preparation of meaningful down-stream
analyses for targeted biological purposes. (i.e. DE gene detection, classification, pathway analysis…)
From scanned images Þ Image analysis (extract intensity values from the images)Þ Probe analysis (generate data matrix of expression profile) Þ Preprocessing (data transformation, gene filtering and
missing value imputation)
5
1. Affymetrix probe level analysis
6
Hybridization
from Affymetrix Inc.
Overview of the technology
7
25-mer unique oligo
mismatch in the middle nuclieotide
multiple probes (11~16) for each gene
from Affymetrix Inc.
Array Design
8
Background adjustment Normalization Summarization
Give an expression measure for each probe set on each array (how to pool information of 16 probes?)
The result will greatly affect subsequent analysis (e.g. clustering and classification). If not modeled properly,
=> “Garbage in, garbage out”
Array Probe Level Analysis
We will leave the discussion of “backgound adjustment” to the last because there’re more new exciting & technical advances.
NormalizationBackground adjustment Summarization
9
1.1 NormalizationThe need for normalization:
array1 array2gene1 3308 4947.5gene2 2334 3155.5gene3 2518 3738gene4 8882.5 18937gene5 5041 12956.5gene6 7314.5 19013.5gene7 3508.5 8164gene8 2183 5121.5gene9 4790 8082gene10 1645.5 1794.5gene11 1772 1963gene12 1802.5 2186.5gene13 14846 35811gene14 9986 25293gene15 11640.5 21508gene16 3860 6530average 5339.5 11200.09
Intensities of array 2 is intrinsically larger than array 1. (about two fold)
10
1.1. NormalizationReason:1. Different labeling efficiency.2. Different hybridization time or
hybridization condition.3. Different scanning sensitivity.4. …..
Sarray )(
2array )(
1array )(
intensity observed the:
level expression underlying the:
222
111
gSSgS
gg
gg
gs
gs
fx
fx
fx
x
Normalization is needed in any microarray platform. (including Affy & cDNA)
11
Constant scaling
1.1. Normalization
• Distributions on each array are scaled to have identical mean.
• Applied in MAS 4.0 and MAS 5.0 but they perform the scaling after computing expression measure.
gss
gs xx
xx
1'
array, reference theis 1array Suppose
12)( same eroughly th are expression overall their if
as estimated becan
but estimablenot is
,,2,
array, reference theis 1array Suppose
Sarray )(
2array )(
1array )( :Assumption
s1
11
1
11'
22222
11111
ss
gsgsS
gs
gSSgSSgS
ggg
ggg
x
x
Ssxx
fx
fx
fx
Constant scaling: Underlying reasoning
1.1. Normalization
13
1.1 Normalization
M-A plot
2log
log
1
1
ggs
g
gs
xxA
x
xM
A
M
M=0
14
1.1 Normalization
M-A plot shows the need for non-linear normalization. The normalization factor is a function of the expression level.
constantlogloglog
:genes expressedally differenti-nonFor
1111
1
s
g
gss
g
gs
ggs
x
xM
θθ
15
1.1 Normalization
)(ˆˆ AfM Fit by ‘Lowess’ function in S-Plus
Normalized Log ratio:
MMM ˆ~
Replicate arraysThe same pool of sample is applied
16
)(
)(log),(
),(log
)(
)(loglog
Sarray )()(
2array )()(
1array )()( :Assumption
111
11
11
11
222222
111111
gss
ggsg
gsgg
gs
gss
g
g
gs
g
gsgs
gSgSSgSSgS
gggg
gggg
gwhere
gx
x
x
x
θ
θh
fx
fx
fx
Non-linear scaling: Underlying reasoning
1.1 Normalization
log relativeexpression level
17
Suppose we know the green genes are non-differentially expressed genes,
),(ˆloglogˆ
)(
)(log),(ˆ
)(
)(log
)(
)(log),(
111
11
1
11111
gsgg
gs
g
gsgs
gs
ggsg
ggs
gsgs
gg
gss
ggsg
gx
x
θ
θh
Ax
Axg
where
x
xg
Non-linear scaling: Underlying reasoning (cont’d)
1.1 Normalization
The problem is: we usually don’t know which genes are constantly expressed!!
18
1.1. Normalization
Loess (Yang et al., 2002)
• Using all genes to fit a non-linear normalization curve at the M-A plot scale. (believe that most genes are constantly expressed)
• Perform normalization between arrays pairwisely.
• Has been extended to perform normalization globally without selecting a baseline array but then is time-consuming.
19
1.1. NormalizationInvariant set (dChip)
• Select a baseline array (default is the one with median average intensity).
• For each “treatment” array, identify a set of genes that have ranks conserved between the baseline and treatment array. This set of rank-invariant genes are considered non-differentially expressed genes.
• Each array is normalized against the baseline array by fitting a non-linear normalization curve of invariant-gene set.
lGxxRankldxrankxrankgG ggsggs 2/)(&)()(: 11
Tseng et al., 2001
20
Advantage:
More robust than fitting with all genes as in loess. Especially when expression distribution in the arrays are very different.
Disadvantage:
The selection of baseline array is important.
Invariant set (dChip)
1.1. Normalization
21
1.1. NormalizationQuantile normalization (RMA) (Irizarry2003)
1. Given n array of length p, form X of dimension p×n where each array is a col21umn.
2. Sort each column of X to give Xsort.
3. Take the means across rows of Xsort and assign this mean to each element in the row to get Xsort.
4. Get Xnormalized by rearranging each column of Xsort to have the same ordering as original X.237 283
341 397
401 198
329 335
237 198
329 283
341 335
401 397
217.5 217.5
306 306
338 338
399 399
X Xsort Xsort217.5 306
338 399
399 217.5
306 338
Xnormalized
22
1.1. Normalization
Bolstad, B.M., Irizarry RA, Astrand, M, and Speed, TP (2003), A Comparison of Normalization Methods for High Density Oligonucleotide Array Data Based on Bias and Variance Bioinformatics. 19(2):185-193
A careful comparison of different normalization methods and concluded that quantile normalization generally performs the best.
23
1.2. Summarize Expression IndexThere’re multiple probes for one gene (11 PM and 11 MM) in U133.How do we summarize the 24 intensity values to a meaningful expression intensity for the target gene?
24
MAS 4.0For each probe set, (I: # of arrays, J: # of probes)
PMij-MMij= i + ij, i=1,…,I, j=1,…,J
i estimated by average difference
1. Negative expression
2. Noisy for low expressed genes
3. Not account for probe affinity
1.2. Summarize Expression Index
25
dChip (DNA chips)For each probe set, (I: # of arrays, J: # of probes)
PMij=j + ij + ij + ij
MMij=j + ij + ij
PMij - MMij= ij + ij, i=1,…,I, j=1,…,J
j = J, ij ~ N(0, 2)
1. Account for probe affinity effect, j.
2. Outlier detection through multi-chip analysis
3. Recommended for more than 10 arrays
Multiplicative model: PMij - MMij= ij + ij (better)
Additive model: PMij - MMij= i + j + ij
1.2. Summarize Expression Index
Li and Wong (PNAS, 2001)
26
MAS 5.0For each probe set, (I: # of arrays, J: # of probes)
log(PMij-CTij)=log(i)+ij, i=1,…,I, j=1,…,J
CTij=MMij if MMij<PMij
if MMijPMij
i estimated by a robust average (Tukey biweight).
1. No more negative expression
2. Taking log adjusts for dependence of variance on the mean.
less than PMij
1.2. Summarize Expression Index
27
RMA (Robust Multi-array Analysis)For each probe set, (I: # of arrays, J: # of probes)
log(T(PMij))= i + j + ij, i=1,…,I, j=1,…,J
T is the transformation for background correction and normalization
ij ~ N(0, 2)
1. Log-scale additive model
2. Suggest not to use MM
3. Fit the linear model robustly (median polish)
1.2. Summarize Expression Index
Irizarry et al. (NAR, 2003)
28
1.25g 1.25g
1.25g
20g 20g
20g
R2=0.85 R2=0.95
R2=0.97
from Irizarry et al. (NAR, 2003)
Affymetrix Latin square data
29
from Irizarry et al. (NAR, 2003)
Affymetrix Latin square data
30
Direct subtraction: PM-MMMAS4.0, dChip, MAS5.0
Assume the following deterministic model: PM=O+N+S (O: optical noise, N: non-specifi binding)
MM=O+N
=> PM-MM=S>0
Is it true?
1.3. Background Adjustment
31
Yeast sample hybridized to human chip
If MM measures non-specific binding of PM well, PMMM.
R2 only 0.5.
MM does not measure background noise of PM
86 HG-U95A human chips, human blood extracts
Two fork phenomenon at high abundance
1/3 of probes have MM>PM
Many MM>PM
32
Reasons MM should not be used:
1. MM contain non-specific binding information but also include signal information and noise
2. The non-specific binding mechanism not well-studied.
3. MM is costly (take up half space of the array)
Ignore MM
dChip has an option for PM-only model
In general, PM-only is preferred for both dChip or RMA methods.
1.3. Background Adjustment
33
1. 95% of (MM>PM) have purine (A, G) in the middle base.
2. In the current protocol, only pyrimidines (C, T) have biotin-labeled florescence.
Consider sequence information
Naef & Magnasco, 2003
1.3. Background Adjustment
34
Fit a simple linear model:
1. C > G T > A2. Boundary effect
1.3. Background Adjustment
affinity probe :
Naef & Magnasco, 2003
35
PM C G T A
MM G C A T
labeling Yes (+) No (-) Yes (+) No(-)
Labeling impedes binding
Yes (-) No Yes (-) No
Hydrogen bonds
3 (+) 3 (+) 2 2
Sequence specific brightness
High average average Low
Some chemical explanation of the result:
1.3. Background Adjustment
See next page
36From: Lodish et al. Fig 4-4
Double strand
Remember from the first lecture:
• G-C has three hydrogen bonds. (stronger)
• A-T has two hydrogen bonds. (weaker)
1.3. Background Adjustment
37
GC-RMA
1
1,
)log(
)log( 2
MM
PM
MM
PM NN
N
MM
PM
MM
PM h
h: a smooth (almost linear) function.: the sequence information weight
computed form the simple linear model.
O: optical noise, log-normal dist.N: non-specific binding
1.3. Background Adjustment
Wu et al., 2004 JASA
38
• Accuracy– In well-controlled experiment with spike-in
genes (such as Latin Square data), accuracy of estimated log-fold changes compared to the underlying true log-fold changes are concerned.
(only available in data with spike-in genes)• Precision
– In data with replicates, the reproducibility (SD) of the same gene in replicates is concerned.
(available in data with replicates)
Criterion to compare diff. methods
39
40
41
GC-RMA
42
Fee GUI Flexibility to programming and mining
Audience
MAS 4.0 Commercial Yes No Average Difference
Manufacturer default
dChip Free Yes Some extra tools
Li-Wong model Biologists
MAS 5.0 Commercial Yes No Robust average of log difference
Manufacturer default
RMAExpress Free Yes No RMA Biologists
Bioconductor Free Some Best All of above Statistician, programmer
ArrayAssist Commercial Yes No RMA, GC-RMA Biologists
43
Background
Methods
Normalization
Methods
PM correctionMethods
Summarization
Methods
nonerma/rma2mas
quantilesloesscontrastsconstantinvariantsetqspline
maspmonlysubtractmm
avgdiffliwongmasmedianpolishplayerout
Probe level analysis in Bioconductor(affy package)
44
A Simple Case Study
Transcripts1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Expts A 0 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 0 512B 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 0.25 1024C 0.5 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 0.5 0D 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024 1 0.25E 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024 0 2 0.5F 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024 0 0.25 4 1G 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024 0 0.25 0.5 8 2H 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024 0 0.25 0.5 1 16 4I 32 64 128 256 512 1024 0 0.25 0.5 1 2 32 8
J 64 128 256 512 1024 0 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 64 16K 128 256 512 1024 0 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 128 32L 256 512 1024 0 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16 256 64
M, N, O, P 512 1024 0 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16 32 512 128Q, R, S, T 1024 0 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 1024 256
http://www.affymetrix.com/analysis/download_center2.affx
Latin Square Data59 HG-U95A arrays14 spike-in genes in 14 experimental groups
M, N, O, P are replicates and Q, R, S, T another replicates
45
M 1521m99hpp_av06.CEL 1521q99hpp_av06.CEL Q
N 1521n99hpp_av06.CEL 1521r99hpp_av06.CEL R
O 1521o99hpp_av06.CEL 1521s99hpp_av06.CEL S
P 1521p99hpp_av06.CEL 1521t99hpp_av06.CEL T
Take the following two replicate groups.
Use Bioconducotr to perform a simple evaluation of different probe analysis algorithms.
Note: This is only a simple demonstration. The evaluation result in this presentation is not conclusive.
A Simple Case Study
46
Average log intensities vs SD log intensities. (M, N, O, P)
A Simple Case Study
MAS5.0
dChip(PM only)
dChip(PM/MM)
RMA
GC-RMA(PM/MM)
GC-RMA(PM only)
47
A Simple Case StudyAverage log intensities vs SD log intensities. (Q, R, S, T)
MAS5.0
dChip(PM only)
dChip(PM/MM)
RMA
GC-RMA(PM/MM)
GC-RMA(PM only)
48
M, N, O, P Q, R, S, T
MAS5 0.8930 0.9002
dChip (PM/MM) 0.9604 0.9621
dChip (PM-only) 0.9940 0.9966
RMA 0.9978 0.9978
GC-RMA(PM/MM) 0.9988 0.9990
GC-RMA(PM-only) 0.9993 0.9994
Average pair-wise correlationsbetween replicates
A Simple Case Study
Replicate correlation performance: GCRMA(PM-only)>GC-RMA(PM/MM)> RMA> dChip(PM-only)>>dChip(PM/MM)>>MAS5
49
A Simple Case Study
RMA greatly improves dChip(PM/MM) but dChip(PM-only) model generally seems a little better than RMA.
Average replicate correlations of RMA (0.9978) is a little better than dChip(PM only) (0.9940 & 0.9966)
dChip(PM only) suffers from a number of outlying genes in the model.
Outlying genes that do not fit Li-Wong model
50
Conclusion:1. Technological advances have been made to have smaller
probe size and better sequence selection algorithms to reduce # of probes in a probe set. This will enable more biologically meaningful genes on a slide and reduce the cost.
2. Recent analysis advances have been focused on understanding and modelling hybridization mechanisms. This will allow a better use of MM probes or eventually suggest to remove MMs from the array.
3. The probe analysis is relatively settled in the field. In the second lab session next Friday, we will introduce dChip and RMAexpress for Affymetrix probe analysis.
51
2. cDNA probe level analysis
52
From Y. Chen et al. (1997)
cDNA Microarray Review
53
1. 48 grids in a 12x4 pattern.
2. Each grid has 12x16 features.
3. Total 9216 features.
4. Each pin prints 3 grids.
Probe (array) printingcDNA Microarray Review
54
Probe design and printingcDNA Microarray Review
55From Y. Chen et al. (1997)
cDNA Microarray Review
56
cDNA GeneChip
Probe preparation
Probes are cDNA fragments, usually amplified by PCR and spotted by robot.
Probes are short oligos synthesized using a photolithographic approach.
colors Two-color(measures relative intensity)
One-color(measures absolute intensity)
Gene representation
One probe per gene 11-16 probe pairs per gene
Probe length Long, varying lengths(hundreds to 1K bp)
25-mers
Density Maximum of ~15000 probes. 38500 genes * 11 probes = 423500 probes
Comparison of cDNA array and GeneChip
cDNA Microarray Review
57
Advantage and disadvantage of cDNA array and GeneChip
cDNA microarray Affymetrix GeneChip
The data can be noisy and with variable quality
Specific and sensitive. Result very reproducible.
Cross(non-specific) hybridization can often happen.
Hybridization more specific.
May need a RNA amplification procedure.
Can use small amount of RNA.
More difficulty in image analysis. Image analysis and intensity extraction is easier.
Need to search the database for gene annotation.
More widely used. Better quality of gene annotation.
Cheap. (both initial cost and per slide cost)
Expensive (~$400 per array+labeling and hybridization)
Can be custom made for special species.
Only several popular species are available
Do not need to know the exact DNA sequence.
Need the DNA sequence for probe selection.
58
Identify spot area : 1. Each spot contains around 100100 pixels. 2. Spot image may not be uniformly and roundly
distributed. 3. Some software (like ScanAlyze or ImaGene) have
algorithms to “help” placing the grids and identify spot and background area locally.
4. Still semi-automatic: a very time-consuming job.
Extract intensities (data reduction) : 1. Aim to extract the minimum most informative
statistics for further analysis. Usually use the median signal minus the median background.
2. Some spot quality indexes (e.g. Stdev or CV) will be computed.
2.1. Image Analysis
59
ScanAlyze 2.1. Image Analysis
60
1. Input the number of rows and columns in each sector; input the approximate location and distances between spots.
2. May need to tilt the grids
3. Some local adjustments may be needed.
4. Once the spot grids are close enough to the real spot physical location, computer image algorithms will help to find the optimal spot area (spherical or irregular shapes) and background area.
May take 10~30 minutes for an array. Usually the biologists will do it.
2.1. Image Analysis
61http://www.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/ags/ai/projects/microarray/
2.1. Image Analysis
62
Result file from image analysis
Summarized intensities for further analysis: median(spot intensities)-median(background intensities)
2.1. Image Analysis
63
• Affymetrix– Normalization done across arrays– After normalization, the expression data matrix
shows absolute expression intensities.
• cDNA– Normalization between two colors in an array.– After normalization, the expression data matrix
shows comparative expression intensities (log-ratios).
2.2. Normalization
64
)35log( CyCyM
2/)3log()5log( CyCyA
Calibration: apply the same samples on both dyes (E. Coli grown in glucose). Purple and orange represent two replicate slides.
2.2. Normalization
• Same sample on both dyes.• Each point is a gene.• Orange is one array and purple is
another array.
65
Normalization:
General idea: Dye effect : Cy5 is usually more bleached than
Cy3. Slide effect The normalization factor is slide dependent. Usually need to assume that most genes are not
differentially expressed or up- and down-regulated genes roughly cancel out the expression effect.
2.2. Normalization
66
Normalization:Current popular methods: House-keeping genes : Select a set of non-differentially
expressed genes according to experiences. Then use these genes to normalize.
Constant normalization factor : Use mean or median of each dye to normalize. ANOVA model (Churchill’s group)
Average-intensity-dependent normalization: Robust nonlinear regression(Lowess) applied on whole
genome. (Speed’s group) Select invariant genes computationally (rank-invariant
method). Then apply Lowess. (Wong’s group)
2.2. Normalization
67
Loess Normalization:Pin-wise normalization using all the genes. It requires the assumption that up- and down-regulated genes with similar average intensities (denoted A) are roughly cancelled out or otherwise most genes remain unchanged.
A
M
From Dudoit et al. 2000
2.2. Normalization
68
Rank Invariant Normalization:
Rank-invariant method (Schadt et al. 2001, Tseng et al. 2001):
11
0
*)3()5(&:
2/35&*)3()5(:
:selection Iterative
553:
11
igSggSgii
gggg
gg
SpCyRankCyRankSggS
lGCyCyRanklGpCyRankCyRankgS
CyrankCyrankabsgG
ii
Idea: If a particular gene is up- or down- regulated, then its Cy5
rank among whole genome will significantly different from Cy3 rank.
Iterative selection helps to select a more conserved invariant set when number of genes is large.
2.2. Normalization
69
Rank Invariant Normalization:
Blue points are invariant genes selected by rank-invariant method.
Red curves are estimated by Lowess and extrapolation.
Data: E. Coli. Chip, ~4000 genes, from Liao lab.2.2. Normalization
70
Data Truncation
Data Truncation• In cDNA microarry, the
intensity value is between 0~216=65536.
• Measurement of low intensity genes are not stable.
• Extremely highly expressed genes can saturate.
• For example, we can truncate genes with intensity smaller than 200 or larger than 65000.
71
Approaches to assess expression level:
Single slide:1. Normal model (Chen et al. 1997)2. Gamma model with empirical Bayes approach
(Newton et al. 2001)
With replicate slides: Traditional t-test. ANOVA model (Kerr et al. 2000) Permutation t-test (Dudoit et al. 2000)
Hierarchical structure: Linear hierarchical model (Tseng et al. 2001)
2.3. Assess Expression Level
72
s.intensitie absoluteon lconditiona ratioinfer Suggest to
values.negative avoid toonsdistributi gamma Assume
(1999) al.et Newton 2.
.experiment in the
genes keeping-houseknown at Cy5/Cy3by /Infer
c
),(~Cy3 ,),(~Cy5
al.(1997)et Chen 1.
GR
G
G
R
R
GGRR NN
Single slide analysis:
2.3. Assess Expression Level
73
Case study: (Tseng et al. 2001)125-gene project: each gene is spotted four timesCalibration: E. Coli grown in acetate v.s. actate C1S1~2 E. Coli grown in glucose v.s. glucose C2S1~4, C3S1~2, C4S1~3Comparative: E. Coli grown in acetate v.s. glucose R1S1~2, R2S1~2
4129-gene project: each gene is singly spottedCalibration: E. Coli grown in acetate v.s. actate C1S1~2, C2S1~2Comparative: E. Coli grown in acetate v.s. glucose R1S1~2, R2S1~2
2.3. Assess Expression Level
74
C 1 S 1 C 1 S 2
C 1
C 2 S 1 C 2 S 2
C 2
O rig in a l m R N A p oo lReversed transcription & labeling
Hybridize onto different slides
Hierarchical structure in experiment design
2.3. Assess Expression Level
75
2.3. Assess Expression Level
76
2.3. Assess Expression Level
ofon distributiposterior thecalled is )(
of ge)on(knowleddistributiprior a is )(
)()|,(
)()|,()(
:rule Bayes
data observed :,
interest ofparameter underlyingunknown the:
)|(~,
1
1
11
1
1
n
n
nn
n
n
x,θ|xg
h
dhxxf
hxxfx,θ|xg
xx
xfxx
Basics of Bayesian Analysis
Meaning how much we can say about given the data
77
),(~ 2gegseg Nx
222 ~~ kgg k
),(~ 2ggeg N
222 ~~ hgg h
.parameters adjustable are and . variationslide :
. variationl)al(culturaexperiment :
level. expression trueunderlying :
gene. :g slide, :s ,experiment :e
).35log( logratios, normalized :x
2
2
kh
CyCy
Baysian Hierarchical Model
1gp
0.51)) (0.45, 0.67), ((0.75, e.g.
observed. are sonly x' Note
C 1 S 1 C 1 S 2
C 1
C 2 S 1 C 2 S 2
C 2
O rig in a l m R N A p oo l2
2
2.3. Assess Expression Level
78
2.3. Assess Expression Level
2~g
2g
2~g
2g
g
eg
segx
h
k
),(~ 2gegseg Nx
222 ~~ kgg k
),(~ 2ggeg N
222 ~~ hgg h 1gp
79
How to specify the prior?
Empirical Bayes:
model. alhierarchiclayer - threein thisimplement tohard isIt
)|,,,,~,~()|~,~p(
.likelihood
marginal resulting themaximize and parameters teintermedia
out gintegratinby achievedusually is EB ofsion common verA
).~,~( etershyperparamspecify help todata empirical Use
22
~
2222
~
22
~,~
22
22max
ddddXpX
gg
2.3. Assess Expression Level
80
) variationexperiment(between
) variationslides(between
)1()(~
)1()(~data. empirical fromprior in parameters Estimate
,
22
,,
22
eg geg
esg eggse
EGyy
ESGyy
Another version of EB:
C 1 S 1 C 1 S 2
C 1
C 2 S 1 C 2 S 2
C 2
O rig in a l m R N A p oo l
2
2
ve.conservati more is ~ of estimation The •
.alleviated is EBin prior confident -over getting and data
reusing of problemcommon thegenes, of thousandsare thereSince •
:Note
2
2.3. Assess Expression Level
81
esg eggseA
es eggseg
Agg
ESGxx
ESxx
ESES
,,
22
,
22
222
)1()(ˆ
)1()(ˆ
1*)1(ˆˆ**)1(~
((0.75, 0.67), (0.45, 0.51))
eg egA
e egg
Agg
GEx
Ex
EE
,
22
22
222
ˆ
ˆ
1ˆˆ*~
Getting prior distribution: (when we have calibration experiments)
C 1 S 1 C 1 S 2
C 1
C 2 S 1 C 2 S 2
C 2
O rig in a l m R N A p oo l
C 1 S 1 C 1 S 2
C 1
C 2 S 1 C 2 S 2
C 2
O rig in a l m R N A p oo l
2
2
Calibration(normal vs normal)
Comparative(cancer vs normal)
2
2
2.3. Assess Expression Level
82
1. Compute
2.
3.
4.
5.
egeg x)0()(
21
222
~)(~
hE
e geg
egg
h
E
N gggegg
22 ,~,
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
~)(
~,kss
E
jg
s
segseg
segegg
E
e
kx
x
22
22
22
2222 ,~,,,
gge
gg
gge
gggegegggsegeg
ss
xsNx
MCMC for hierarchical model:
2.3. Assess Expression Level
83
2.3. Assess Expression Level
95% probability interval of the posterior distribution of the underlying expression level.
84
2.4. Experimental design
• Biological variation
Technical variations:
• Amplification
• Labeling
• Hybridization
• Pin effect
• Scanning
85
(i) Calibration: Use the same sample on both dyes for hybridization.
Calibration experiments help to validate experiment quality and gene-specific variability.
2.4.1 Calibration and replicate
Comparative:Tumor vs Ref
Calibration:Ref vs Ref
86
(ii) Replicates: (replicate spots, slides) Multiple-spotting helps to identify local
contaminated spots but will reduce number of genes in the study.
Multi-stage strategy: Use single-spotting to include as many genes as possible for pilot study. Identify a subset of interesting genes and then use multiple-spotting.
Replicate spots and slides help to verify reproducibility on the spot and slide level.
2.4.2. Calibration and replicate
87
2.4.2. Calibration and replicateBiological replicate
From Yang, UCSF
88
Technical replicate
2.4.2. Calibration and replicate
From Yang, UCSF
89
(iii) Reverse labelling:
Advantage:• Cancel out linear normalization scaling and
simplifies the analysis. However, the linear assumption is often not true.
• Help to cancel out gene-label interactions if it exists.
Sample A Sample B
2.4.2. Calibration and replicate
90
Different choices of reference sample:a) Normal patient or time 0 sample in time course
study
b) Pool all samples or all normal samples
c) Embryonic cells
d) Commercial kit
2.4.3. Choice of reference sample
Ideally we want all genes expressed at a constant moderate level in reference sample.
91
2.4.4. Design issue
From Yang, UCSF
92
Design issues:(a) Reference design(b) Loop design(c) Balance design
2.4.4. Design issue
Reference sample is redundantly measured many times.
93
(c)v samples with v+2 experiments v samples with 2v experiments
See Kerr et al. 2001
94
Conclusion of cDNA array
1. Affymetrix GeneChip is more preferred if available.
2. Unlike GeneChip, cDNA array data is usually more noisy and careful quality control (replicates and calibration) is important. But occasionally custom arrays are needed for some specific research.
3. Analysis of cDNA microarray is also applicable to other two-color technology such as array CGH and similar two-color oligo arrays.
4. Conservative “Reference design” is usually more robust although it’s not statistically most efficient.
95
3. Data preprocessing
96
3.1. Data Truncation and Transformation
Transformation
1. Logarithmic transformation (most commonly used)-- tend to get an approximately normal distribution-- should avoid negative or 0 intensity before transformation
2. Square root transformation-- a variance-stabilizing transformation under Poisson model.
3. Box-Cox transformation family
4. Affine transformation
5. Generalized-log transformation
Details see chapter 6.1 in Lee’s book; Log10 or Log2 transformation is the most common practice.
97
3.2. Filtering
Filter is an important step in microarray analysis:1. Without filtering, many genes are irrelevant to the
biological investigation and will add noise to the analysis. (among ~30,000 genes in the human genome, usually only around 6000 genes are expressed and varied in the experiment)
2. But filtering out too many genes will run the risk to eliminate important biomarkers.
3. Three common aspects of filtering:1. Genes of bad experimental quality.2. Genes that are not expressed3. Genes that do no fluctuate across experiments.
98
3.2. Filtering
Filter out genes with bad quality in cDNA array: Outputs from imaging analysis usually have a quality index or flag to identify genes with bad quality image.
Three common sources of bad quality probes:1. Problematic probes: probes with non-uniform intensities.2. Low-intensity probes: genes with low intensities are
known to have bad reproducibility and hard to verify by RT-PCR. Normally genes with intensities less than 100 or 200 are filtered.
3. Saturated probes: genes with intensities reaching scanner limit (saturation) should also be filtered.
For Affymetrix and other platforms, each probe (set) also has a detection p-value, quality flag or present/absent call.
99
3.2. Filtering
Filtering by quality index: different array platform and image analysis have different format
low intensity
100
Filtering by quality index:
3.2. Filtering
Array 1
Array 2
Array S
Array 1 Array 2 Array S
Gene 1 NA
Gene 249.422
5
Gene 358.793
8
Gene 4196.23
6
Gene 5146.34
4
Gene 693.554
9
: :
: :
Gene G-2 768.63
Gene G-1 30.3535
Gene G 15.9003
342.061
267.247
72.2798
54.2583
69.6987
73.8338
163.73 197.419
136.412
140.536
131.405 96.128
: :
: :
763.445
936.445
NA34.747
7
12.5406 13.648
NA: not applicableMissing values due to bad quality, low or saturated intensities
101
3.2. FilteringFilter genes with low information content:1. Small standard deviation (stdev)2. Small coefficient of variation (CV: stdev/mean)
samples
inte
nsi
ty
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
05
01
00
15
0
gene 1
samples
inte
nsi
ty
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
05
01
00
15
0
gene 2
stdev=6.45CV=0.29
stdev=6.45CV=0.053
2515
30
20
125115
130
120
Note: CV is more reasonable for original intensities. But for log-transformed intensities, stdev is enough
Why?
102
A simple gene filtering routine (I usually use) before down-stream analyses:
1. Take log (base 2) transformation.
2. Delete genes with more than 20% missing values among all samples.
3. Delete genes with average expression level less than, say α=7 (27=128). For Affymetrix and most other platforms, intensities less than 100-200 are simply noises.
4. Delete genes with standard deviation smaller than, say β=0.4 (20.4=1.32, i.e. 32% fold change).
5. Might adjust β so that the number of remaining genes are computationally manageable in downstream analysis. (e.g. around ~5000 genes)
3.2. FilteringGene filtering
103
3.2. FilteringSample filtering (detecting problematic slides)
Compute correlation matrix of the samples:
1. Arrays of replicates should have high correlation. (m,n,o,p are replicates and q,r,s,t are another set of replicates)
2. A problematic array is often found to have low correlation with all the other arrays.
3. Heatmap is usually plotted for better visualization.
104
m,n,o,p
q,r,s,t
White: high correlation
Dark gray: low correlation
3.2. Filtering
Diagnostic plot by correlation matrix
105
3.3. Missing Value Imputation
Reasons of missing values in microarray:
spotting problems (cDNA) dust finger prints poor hybridization inadequate resolution fabrication errors (e.g. scratches) image corruption
Many down-stream analysis require a complete data.
“Imputation” is usually helpful.
106
Array 1 Array 2 Array S
Gene 1 NA
Gene 2 49.4225
Gene 3 58.7938
Gene 4 196.236
Gene 5 146.344
Gene 6 93.5549
: :
: :
Gene G-2 768.63
Gene G-1 30.3535
Gene G 15.9003
342.061 267.247
72.2798 54.2583
69.6987 73.8338
163.73 197.419
136.412 140.536
131.405 96.128
: :
: :
763.445 936.445
NA 34.7477
12.5406 13.648
It is common to have ~5% MVs in a study.5000(genes)50(arrays) 5%=12,500
3.3. Missing Value Imputation
107
• Naïve approaches– Missing values = 0 or 1 (arbitrary signal)– missing values = row (gene) average
• Smarter approaches have been proposed:– K-nearest neighbors (KNN)– Regression-based methods (OLS)– Singular value decomposition (SVD)– Local SVD (LSVD)– Partial least square (PLS)– More (Bayesian Principal Component Analysis, Least Square
Adaptive, Local Lease Square)
Assumption behind: Genes work cooperatively in groups. Genes with similar pattern will provide information in MV imputation.
3.3. Missing Value Imputation
Existing methods
108
Arrays
Exp
ress
ion
?
randomly missing datum
• choose k genes that are most “similar” to the gene with the missing value (MV)
• estimate MV as the weighted mean of the neighbors
• considerations:– number of neighbors (k)– distance metric– normalization step
3.3. Missing Value Imputation
KNN.e & KNN.c
109
• parameter k– 10 usually works (5-15)
• distance metric– euclidean distance (KNN.e)– correlation-based distance
(KNN.c)• normalization?
– not necessary for euclidean neighbors
– required for correlation neighbors
Arrays
Exp
ress
ion
?
3.3. Missing Value Imputation
KNN.e & KNN.c
110
• regression-based approach• KNN+OLS• algorithm:
– choose k neighbors (euclidean or correlation; normalize or not)
– the gene with the MV is regressed over the neighbor genes (one at a time, i.e. simple regression)
– for each neighbor, MV is predicted from the regression model
– MV is imputed as the weighed average of the k predictions
3.3. Missing Value Imputation
OLS.e & OLS.c
111
Arrays
Exp
ress
ion
?
randomly missing datumy1 = a1 + b1 x1
y2 = a2 + b2 x2
y = w1 y1 + w2 y2
3.3. Missing Value Imputation
OLS.e & OLS.c
112
• Algorithm– set MVs to row average (need a starting point)– decompose expression matrix in orthogonal
components, “eigengenes”.– use the proportion, p, of eigengenes corresponding to
largest eigenvalues to reconstruct the MVs from the original matrix (i.e. improve your estimate)
– use EM approach to iteratively imporove estimates of MVs until convergence
• Assumption:– The complete expression matrix can be well-
decomposed by a smaller number of principle components.
3.3. Missing Value Imputation
SVD
113
• KNN+SVD– choose k neighbors (euclidean or correlation;
normalize or not)– Perform SVD on the k nearest neighbors and
get a prediction of the missing value.
3.3. Missing Value Imputation
LSVD.e & LSVD.c
114
• PLS: Select linear combinations of genes (PLS components) exhibiting high covariance with the gene having the MV.– The first linear combination of genes has the highest
correlation with the target gene.– The second linear combination of genes had the greatest
correlation with the target gene in the orthogonal space of the first linear combination.
• MVs are then imputed by regressing the target gene onto the PLS components
3.3. Missing Value Imputation
PLS
115
3.3. Missing Value Imputation
Types of missing mechanism:
1. Missing completely at random (MCAR)Missingness is independent of the observed values and their own unobserved values.
1. Spot missing due to mis-printing or dust particle.2. Spot missing due to scratches.
2. Missing at random (MAR)Missingness is independent of the unobserved data but depend on the observed data.
• Missing not at random (MNAR)MIssingness is dependent on the unobserved data1. Spots missing due to saturation or low expression.
Currently imputation methods only work for MCAR, not MNAR.
116
Which missing value imputation method to use in expression profiles: a comparative study and two selection schemes
Guy N. Brock1, John R. Shaffer2, Richard E. Blakesley3, Meredith J. Lotz3, George C. Tseng2,3,4§
BMC Bioinformatics, 2008
117
Data set Full Dim. Used Dim. Category Organism Expression Profiles
Alizadeh (ALI)
13412 x 40
5635 x 40 multiple exposure H. sapiens diffuse large B-cell lymphoma
Alon (ALO) 2000 x 62 2000 x 62 multiple exposure H. sapiens colon cancer and normal colon tissue
Baldwin (BAL)
16814 x 39
6838 x 39 time series, non-cyclic H. sapiens epithelial cellular response to L. monocytogenes
Causton (CAU)
4682 x 45 4616 x 45 multiple exposure x time series
S. cerevisiae
response to changes in extracellular environment
Gasch (GAS) 6152 x 174
2986 x 155 multiple exposure x time series
S. cerevisiae
cellular response to DNA-damaging adgents
Golub (GOL) 7129 x 72 1994 x 72 multiple exposure H. sapiens acute lymphoblastic leukemia
Ross (ROS) 9706 x 60 2266 x 60 multiple exposure H. sapiens NCI60 cancer cell lines
Spellman, AFA (SP.AFA)
7681 x 18 4480 x 18 time series, cyclic S. cerevisiae
cell-cycle genes
Spellman, ELU (SP.ELU)
7681 x 14 5766 x 14 time series, cyclic S. cerevisiae
cell-cycle genes
9 data sets: multiple exposure, time series or both7 methods were compared: KNN, OLS, LSA, LLS, PLS, SVD, BPCA
3.3. MV imputation comparative study
118
Global-based methods (PLS, SVD, BPCA): Estimate the global structure of the data to impute MV.
Neighbor-based methods (KNN, OLS, LSA, LLS): Borrow information from correlated genes (neighbors).
Intuitively global-based methods require that dimension reduction of the data can be effectively performed.
We define an entropy measure for a given data D to determine how well the dimension reduction of the data can be done: (i are the eigenvalues)
,)log(
log)( 1
k
ppDe
k
i ii
k
l liip1
.
Entropy low: the first few eigenvalues dominate and the data can be reduced to low-dimension effectively.
3.3. MV imputation comparative study
119
LRMSE is the performance measure, the lower the better.
KNN, OLS, LSA, LLS are neighbor-based methods and work better in low-entropy data sets.
PLS and SVD are global-based methods and work better in high-entropy data sets.
,)(,ˆ0
)(; ijkjjiijkMj DeDDLRMSE
i
3.3. MV imputation comparative study
120
Simulation II Simulation III
Data set
Entropy
Optimal EBS Accuracy
Optimal STS Accuracy
BAL 0.819 LSA (38), LLS (12)
LSA (50) 76% LSA (9), LLS (1)
LSA (10) 90%
CAU 0.838 LLS (45), LSA (5)
LSA (50) 10% LLS (10) LSA (10) 0%
ALO 0.872 LSA (50) LSA (50) 100% LSA (10) LSA (10) 100%
GOL 0.876 LSA (50) LSA (50) 100% LSA (10) LSA (10) 100%
SP.ELU
0.909 LLS (41), BPCA (9)
LSA (50) 0% LLS (10) BPCA (10) 0%
GAS 0.911 LSA (50) LSA (50) 100% LSA (10) LSA (10) 100%
SP.AFA
0.94 LLS (40), BPCA (10)
LSA (50) 0% LLS (9), BPCA (1)
BPCA (10) 10%
ROS 0.944 LSA (50) LSA (50) 100% LSA (10) LSA (10) 100%
ALI 0.947 LSA (50) LSA (50) 100% LSA (10) LSA (10) 100%
Overall 65% Overall 67%
Three methods (LSA, LLS, BPCA) performed best but none dominated.
Performed two selection schemes (entropy-based scheme and self-training scheme) to select the best imputation method.
3.3. MV imputation comparative study