Close
Help
Need Help?



Evaluation of Combining Several Statistical Methods with a Flexible Cutoff for Identifying Differentially Expressed Genes in Pairwise Comparison of EST Sets

Submit a Paper


Libertas Analytics


1494 Article Views

Publication Date: 01 May 2008

Journal: Bioinformatics and Biology Insights 2008:2 215-237

BBI
journal

95,650 Article Views

2,650,073 Libertas Article Views

More Statistics

Abstract Angelica Lindlöf1, Marcus Bräutigam2, Aakash Chawade2, Olof Olsson2 and Björn Olsson1

1School of Humanities and Informatics, University of Skövde, Box 408, 541 28 Skövde, Sweden. 2Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, Göteborg University, Box 462, 403 20 Göteborg, Sweden.

Abstract

The detection of differentially expressed genes from EST data is of importance for the discovery of potential biological or pharmaceutical targets, especially when studying biological processes in less characterized organisms and where large-scale microarrays are not an option. We present a comparison of five different statistical methods for identifying up-regulated genes through pairwise comparison of EST sets, where one of the sets is generated from a treatment and the other one serves as a control. In addition, we specifically address situations where the sets are relatively small (~2,000– 10,000 ESTs) and may differ in size. The methods were tested on both simulated and experimentally derived data, and compared to a collection of cold stress induced genes identified by microarrays. We found that combining the method pro- posed by Audic and Claverie with Fisher’s exact test and a method based on calculating the difference in relative frequency was the best combination for maximizing the detection of up-regulated genes. We also introduced the use of a flexible cutoff, which takes the size of the EST sets into consideration. This could be considered as an alternative to a static cutoff. Finally, the detected genes showed a low overlap with those identified by microarrays, which indicates, as in previous studies, low overall concordance between the two platforms.


Post a Comment

x close

Discussion Add A Comment
No comments yet...Be the first to comment.


share on

Our Service Promise

  • Prompt Processing (Average 3 Weeks)
  • Fair & Constructive Peer Review
  • Professional Author Service
  • High Visibility
  • High Readership
  • What Our Authors Say

Quick Links

Follow Us We make it easy to find new research papers. RSS Feeds Email Alerts Twitter

BROWSE CATEGORIES
Our Testimonials
I had an excellent experience publishing our review article in Clinical Medicine Reviews.  The managing editor was very helpful and the process was very timely and transparent.
Professor Jonathan A. Bernstein (University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Division of Immunology, Allergy Section, Cincinnati, OH, USA) What our authors say