Close
Help
Need Help?





JOURNAL

Cancer Informatics

1,240,621 Journal Article Views | Journal Analytics

Monitoring of Technical Variation in Quantitative High-Throughput Datasets

Submit a Paper



Publication Date: 23 Sep 2013

Type: Original Research

Journal: Cancer Informatics

Citation: Cancer Informatics 2013:12 193-201

doi: 10.4137/CIN.S12862

Abstract

High-dimensional datasets can be confounded by variation from technical sources, such as batches. Undetected batch effects can have severe consequences for the validity of a study’s conclusion(s). We evaluate high-throughput RNAseq and miRNAseq as well as DNA methylation and gene expression microarray datasets, mainly from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) project, in respect to technical and biological annotations. We observe technical bias in these datasets and discuss corrective interventions. We then suggest a general procedure to control study design, detect technical bias using linear regression of principal components, correct for batch effects, and re-evaluate principal components. This procedure is implemented in the R package swamp, and as graphical user interface software. In conclusion, high-throughput platforms that generate continuous measurements are sensitive to various forms of technical bias. For such data, monitoring of technical variation is an important analysis step.


Downloads

PDF  (1.58 MB PDF FORMAT)

RIS citation   (ENDNOTE, REFERENCE MANAGER, PROCITE, REFWORKS)

BibTex citation   (BIBDESK, LATEX)

XML

PMC HTML


Sharing




What Your Colleagues Say About Cancer Informatics
Publishing in Cancer Informatics was the fastest publication I have ever experienced and has received the highest viewing rate.  So it is a great place to publish your very latest research.
Dr Yue Zhang (Boston, MA, USA)
More Testimonials

Quick Links




Follow Us We make it easy to find new research papers.
Email Alerts RSS Feeds
Facebook Google+ Twitter
Pinterest Tumblr YouTube




SUBJECT HUBS
Author Survey Results
author_survey_results
All authors are surveyed after their articles are published. Authors are asked to rate their experience in a variety of areas, and their responses help us to monitor our performance. Presented here are their responses in some key areas. No 'poor' or 'very poor' responses were received; these are represented in the 'other' category.
See Our Results