IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/csdana/v53y2009i5p1566-1576.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A mixture model approach for the analysis of small exploratory microarray experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Muir, W.M.
  • Rosa, G.J.M.
  • Pittendrigh, B.R.
  • Xu, Z.
  • Rider, S.D.
  • Fountain, M.
  • Ogas, J.

Abstract

The microarray is an important and powerful tool for prescreening of genes for further research. However, alternative solutions are needed to increase power in small microarray experiments. Use of traditional parametric and even non-parametric tests for such small experiments lack power and have distributional problems. A mixture model is described that is performed directly on expression differences assuming that genes in alternative treatments are expressed or not in all combinations (i) not expressed in either condition, (ii) expressed only under the first condition, (iii) expressed only under the second condition, and (iv) expressed under both conditions, giving rise to 4 possible clusters with two treatments. The approach is termed a Mean-Difference-Mixture-Model (MD-MM) method. Accuracy and power of the MD-MM was compared to other commonly used methods, using both simulations, microarray data, and quantitative real time PCR (qRT-PCR). The MD-MM was found to be generally superior to other methods in most situations. The advantage was greatest in situations where there were few replicates, poor signal to noise ratios, or non-homogeneous variances.

Suggested Citation

  • Muir, W.M. & Rosa, G.J.M. & Pittendrigh, B.R. & Xu, Z. & Rider, S.D. & Fountain, M. & Ogas, J., 2009. "A mixture model approach for the analysis of small exploratory microarray experiments," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 53(5), pages 1566-1576, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:csdana:v:53:y:2009:i:5:p:1566-1576
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-9473(08)00316-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only.
    ---><---

    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. Allison, David B. & Gadbury, Gary L. & Heo, Moonseong & Fernandez, Jose R. & Lee, Cheol-Koo & Prolla, Tomas A. & Weindruch, Richard, 2002. "A mixture model approach for the analysis of microarray gene expression data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 1-20, March.
    2. Kim‐Anh Do & Peter Müller & Feng Tang, 2005. "A Bayesian mixture model for differential gene expression," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 54(3), pages 627-644, June.
    3. John D. Storey & Jonathan E. Taylor & David Siegmund, 2004. "Strong control, conservative point estimation and simultaneous conservative consistency of false discovery rates: a unified approach," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 66(1), pages 187-205, February.
    4. Göran Kauermann & Paul Eilers, 2004. "Modeling Microarray Data Using a Threshold Mixture Model," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 376-387, June.
    5. Efron B. & Tibshirani R. & Storey J.D. & Tusher V., 2001. "Empirical Bayes Analysis of a Microarray Experiment," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 96, pages 1151-1160, December.
    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. Ghosh Debashis, 2012. "Incorporating the Empirical Null Hypothesis into the Benjamini-Hochberg Procedure," Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, De Gruyter, vol. 11(4), pages 1-21, July.
    2. Nikolaos Ignatiadis & Wolfgang Huber, 2021. "Covariate powered cross‐weighted multiple testing," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 83(4), pages 720-751, September.
    3. Andrew Y. Chen, 2022. "Do t-Statistic Hurdles Need to be Raised?," Papers 2204.10275, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.
    4. Bickel David R., 2008. "Correcting the Estimated Level of Differential Expression for Gene Selection Bias: Application to a Microarray Study," Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-27, March.
    5. Robin, Stephane & Bar-Hen, Avner & Daudin, Jean-Jacques & Pierre, Laurent, 2007. "A semi-parametric approach for mixture models: Application to local false discovery rate estimation," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 51(12), pages 5483-5493, August.
    6. Xiaoquan Wen, 2017. "Robust Bayesian FDR Control Using Bayes Factors, with Applications to Multi-tissue eQTL Discovery," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 9(1), pages 28-49, June.
    7. He, Yi & Pan, Wei & Lin, Jizhen, 2006. "Cluster analysis using multivariate normal mixture models to detect differential gene expression with microarray data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 641-658, November.
    8. Alejandro Ochoa & John D Storey & Manuel Llinás & Mona Singh, 2015. "Beyond the E-Value: Stratified Statistics for Protein Domain Prediction," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-21, November.
    9. Wang Chamont & Gevertz Jana L., 2016. "Finding causative genes from high-dimensional data: an appraisal of statistical and machine learning approaches," Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, De Gruyter, vol. 15(4), pages 321-347, August.
    10. E. M. Conlon & B. L. Postier & B. A. Methe & K. P. Nevin & D. R. Lovley, 2009. "Hierarchical Bayesian meta-analysis models for cross-platform microarray studies," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(10), pages 1067-1085.
    11. Chen, Xiongzhi, 2019. "Uniformly consistently estimating the proportion of false null hypotheses via Lebesgue–Stieltjes integral equations," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 724-744.
    12. Gordon, Alexander & Chen, Linlin & Glazko, Galina & Yakovlev, Andrei, 2009. "Balancing type one and two errors in multiple testing for differential expression of genes," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 53(5), pages 1622-1629, March.
    13. Cipolli III, William & Hanson, Timothy & McLain, Alexander C., 2016. "Bayesian nonparametric multiple testing," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 64-79.
    14. Guo Wenge & Peddada Shyamal, 2008. "Adaptive Choice of the Number of Bootstrap Samples in Large Scale Multiple Testing," Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-21, March.
    15. Dazard, Jean-Eudes & Sunil Rao, J., 2012. "Joint adaptive mean–variance regularization and variance stabilization of high dimensional data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(7), pages 2317-2333.
    16. Alessio Farcomeni, 2006. "More Powerful Control of the False Discovery Rate Under Dependence," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 15(1), pages 43-73, May.
    17. Nik Tuzov & Frederi Viens, 2011. "Mutual fund performance: false discoveries, bias, and power," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 137-169, May.
    18. Leek Jeffrey T & Storey John D., 2011. "The Joint Null Criterion for Multiple Hypothesis Tests," Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-22, June.
    19. Debashis Ghosh & Wei Chen & Trivellore Raghuanthan, 2004. "The false discovery rate: a variable selection perspective," The University of Michigan Department of Biostatistics Working Paper Series 1040, Berkeley Electronic Press.
    20. Miecznikowski, Jeffrey C. & Gold, David & Shepherd, Lori & Liu, Song, 2011. "Deriving and comparing the distribution for the number of false positives in single step methods to control k-FWER," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 81(11), pages 1695-1705, November.

    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:eee:csdana:v:53:y:2009:i:5:p:1566-1576. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/csda .

    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.