IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/sagmbi/v9y2010i1n42.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Including Probe-Level Measurement Error in Robust Mixture Clustering of Replicated Microarray Gene Expression

Author

Listed:
  • Liu Xuejun

    (Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics)

  • Rattray Magnus

    (University of Sheffield)

Abstract

Probabilistic mixture models provide a popular approach to cluster noisy gene expression data for exploring gene function. Since gene expression data obtained from microarray experiments are often associated with significant sources of technical and biological noise, replicated experiments are typically used to deal with data variability, and internal replication (e.g. from multiple probes per gene in an experiment) provides valuable information about technical sources of noise. However, current implementations of mixture models either do not consider the correlation between the replicated measurements for the same experimental condition, or ignore the probe-level measurement error, and thus overlook the rich information about technical noise. Moreover, most current methods use non-robust Gaussian components to describe the data, and these methods are therefore sensitive to non-Gaussian clusters and outliers. In many cases, this will lead to over-estimation of the number of model components as multiple Gaussian components are used to fit a non-Gaussian cluster. We propose a robust Student's t-mixture model, which explicitly handles replicated gene expression data, includes the consideration of probe-level measurement error when available and automatically selects the appropriate number of model components using a minimum message length criterion. We apply the model to gene expression data using probe-level measurements from an Affymetrix probe-level model, multi-mgMOS, which provides uncertainty estimates. The proposed Student's t-mixture model shows robust performance on synthetic data sets with realistic noise characteristics in comparison to a standard Gaussian mixture model and two other previously published methods. We also compare performance with these methods on two yeast time-course data sets and show that the new method obtains more biologically meaningful clusters in terms of enrichment statistics for GO categories and interactions between transcription factors and genes. Automatically selecting the number of components is more computationally efficient than using a model selection approach and allows the methods to be applied to larger data sets.

Suggested Citation

  • Liu Xuejun & Rattray Magnus, 2010. "Including Probe-Level Measurement Error in Robust Mixture Clustering of Replicated Microarray Gene Expression," Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-25, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:sagmbi:v:9:y:2010:i:1:n:42
    DOI: 10.2202/1544-6115.1600
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2202/1544-6115.1600
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2202/1544-6115.1600?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alan Agresti & Yongyi Min, 2001. "On Small-Sample Confidence Intervals for Parameters in Discrete Distributions," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 963-971, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Joseph B. Lang, 2017. "Mean-Minimum Exact Confidence Intervals," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 71(4), pages 354-368, October.
    2. Devan V. Mehrotra & Ivan S. F. Chan & Roger L. Berger, 2003. "A Cautionary Note on Exact Unconditional Inference for a Difference between Two Independent Binomial Proportions," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 59(2), pages 441-450, June.
    3. Tang, Man-Lai & Qiu, Shi-Fang & Poon, Wai-Yin, 2012. "Confidence interval construction for disease prevalence based on partial validation series," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(5), pages 1200-1220.
    4. Agresti, Alan & Gottard, Anna, 2007. "Nonconservative exact small-sample inference for discrete data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 51(12), pages 6447-6458, August.
    5. Martin Biehler & Heinz Holling & Philipp Doebler, 2015. "Saddlepoint Approximations of the Distribution of the Person Parameter in the Two Parameter Logistic Model," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(3), pages 665-688, September.
    6. Nian-Sheng Tang & Man-Lai Tang, 2002. "Exact Unconditional Inference for Risk Ratio in a Correlated 2 × 2 Table with Structural Zero," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 58(4), pages 972-980, December.
    7. Alan Agresti & Sabrina Giordano & Anna Gottard, 2022. "A Review of Score-Test-Based Inference for Categorical Data," Journal of Quantitative Economics, Springer;The Indian Econometric Society (TIES), vol. 20(1), pages 31-48, September.
    8. Barry Kronenfeld & Timothy Leslie, 2015. "Restricted random labeling: testing for between-group interaction after controlling for joint population and within-group spatial structure," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 1-28, January.
    9. Martin Andres, A. & Herranz Tejedor, I., 2004. "Exact unconditional non-classical tests on the difference of two proportions," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 373-388, March.
    10. Rickey E. Carter & Yan Lin & Stuart R. Lipsitz & Robert G. Newcombe & Kathie L. Hermayer, 2010. "Relative risk estimated from the ratio of two median unbiased estimates," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 59(4), pages 657-671, August.
    11. Xu Gao & Daniel Gillen & Hernando Ombao, 2018. "Fisher information matrix of binary time series," METRON, Springer;Sapienza Università di Roma, vol. 76(3), pages 287-304, December.
    12. Philippe Flandre, 2011. "Statistical Methods in Recent HIV Noninferiority Trials: Reanalysis of 11 Trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(9), pages 1-8, September.
    13. Santner, Thomas J. & Pradhan, Vivek & Senchaudhuri, Pralay & Mehta, Cyrus R. & Tamhane, Ajit, 2007. "Small-sample comparisons of confidence intervals for the difference of two independent binomial proportions," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 51(12), pages 5791-5799, August.
    14. Kabaila, Paul, 2008. "Statistical properties of exact confidence intervals from discrete data using studentized test statistics," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 78(6), pages 720-727, April.
    15. Lucio Barabesi & Marzia Marcheselli, 2011. "Parameter estimation in the classical occupancy model," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 20(3), pages 305-327, August.
    16. Yan Li & Daniel Zelterman & Brian W. C. Forsyth, 2003. "Analyzing Multiply Matched Cohort Studies with Two Different Comparison Groups: Application to Pregnancy Rates among HIV+ Women," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 632-639, September.
    17. Reiczigel, Jeno & Abonyi-Tóth, Zsolt & Singer, Júlia, 2008. "An exact confidence set for two binomial proportions and exact unconditional confidence intervals for the difference and ratio of proportions," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 52(11), pages 5046-5053, July.
    18. Rainer Göb & Kristina Lurz, 2014. "Design and analysis of shortest two-sided confidence intervals for a probability under prior information," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 77(3), pages 389-413, April.
    19. Hannah E. M. Oosterhuis & L. Andries Ark & Klaas Sijtsma, 2017. "Standard Errors and Confidence Intervals of Norm Statistics for Educational and Psychological Tests," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 82(3), pages 559-588, September.
    20. Munk, A. & Skipka, G. & Stratmann, B., 2005. "Testing general hypotheses under binomial sampling: the two sample case--asymptotic theory and exact procedures," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 723-739, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:sagmbi:v:9:y:2010:i:1:n:42. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.