Detection and correction of probe-level artefacts on microarrays

Abstract

BackgroundA recent large-scale analysis of Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) data found frequent evidence for spatial defects in a substantial fraction of Affymetrix microarrays in the GEO. Nevertheless, in contrast to quality assessment, artefact detection is not widely used in standard gene expression analysis pipelines. Furthermore, although approaches have been proposed to detect diverse types of spatial noise on arrays, the correction of these artefacts is mostly left to either summarization methods or the corresponding arrays are completely discarded.ResultsWe show that state-of-the-art robust summarization procedures are vulnerable to artefacts on arrays and cannot appropriately correct for these. To address this problem, we present a simple approach to detect artefacts with high recall and precision, which we further improve by taking into account the spatial layout of arrays. Finally, we propose two correction methods for these artefacts that either substitute values of defective probes using probeset information or filter corrupted probes. We show that our approach can identify and correct defective probe measurements appropriately and outperforms existing tools.ConclusionsWhile summarization is insufficient to correct for defective probes, this problem can be addressed in a straightforward way by the methods we present for identification and correction of defective probes. As these methods output CEL files with corrected probe values that serve as input to standard normalization and summarization procedures, they can be easily integrated into existing microarray analysis pipelines as an additional pre-processing step. An R package is freely available from http://www.bio.ifi.lmu.de/artefact-correction.

A commonly used rumen-protected conjugated linoleic acid supplement marginally affects fatty acid distribution of body tissues and gene expression of mammary gland in heifers during early lactation

“…We applied an error correction pipeline [26] to filter physical artefacts and defective chips were directly excluded. The most commonly used genes (ACTB, GAPDH) did not show a stable expression pattern across all chips.…”

Deciphering the Combined Effects of Environmental Stressors on Gene Transcription: A Conceptual Approach

“…12 Second, the OMICS data quality may also be highly dependent on the analytical technologies. The microarray analysis used in this case study has been useful for identifying various types of transcriptional responses, but the technical limitations of this method may potentially introduce experimental artifacts (e.g., cross-hybridization), 64 thus jeopardizing the identification of true DEGs. Nevertheless, the previously published qualitative assessment 14 using the same data set evaluated the responses of six biomarkers genes by quantitative real-time reverse transcriptional polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and verified that results were in general consistent with that measured by microarray, thus suggesting that experimental artifact due to the technology employed may not be the most important factor affecting the conclusions of this study.…”

Microarray experiments and factors which affect their reliability

“…Microarray surface artifacts can be visualized by either creating an image, based on single probe expression intensities in a convenient (usually logarithmic) scale, or by analyzing differential images created by subtracting the signal of each probe on a single microarray from that on another reference array created by, for example, calculating the median intensity level of each probe across all microarrays in a single experiment [ 37 ]. If a defective array is found, probes affected by an aberration may be separated and removed from the subsequent data analysis or even recreated using imputation techniques [ 38 , 37 , 85 , 86 ]. Microarrays affected by a very large aberration should be removed from the study, as they no longer serve as a reliable source of information.…”