Adjustment for Multiplicity

The number of comparisons of gene expression level studied in a microarray experiment has been growing literarily at an exponential rate since the beginning of the 1990s. Considering a microarray data analyzed by testing each gene, multiple testing is an immediate concern. When many hypotheses are tested, the probability that a type I error is committed increases sharply with the number of hypotheses. This problem of multiplicity is not unique to microarray technology, yet its magnitude here, where a single experiment may involve many thousands of genes, dramatically intensifies the problem.In this chapter, we discuss a few procedures controlling for the FWER, such as the Bonferroni, Holm, and the maxT procedures. However, the focus of this chapter is controlling the FDR criterion, since it admits a more powerful outcome. We discuss several variations of the Benjamini and Hochberg step-up procedure (BH-FDR 1995), the permutation-based FDR controlling procedures, and the significance analysis of microarrays (SAM) approach of Tusher et al. (Proc Natl Acad Sci 98:5116–5121, 2001) and the Efron et al. (J Am Stat Assoc 96:1151–1160, 2001), and Storey (A direct approach to false discovery rates. Technical Report. Stanford University, Stanford, 2001) Bayesian interpretation of the FDR within the context of microarray data.

[1]  David Eilam,et al.  Quinpirole induces compulsive checking behavior in rats: a potential animal model of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). , 1998, Behavioral neuroscience.

[2]  John D. Storey.  The positive false discovery rate: a Bayesian interpretation and the q-value , 2003 .

[3]  S. Sarkar.  STEPUP PROCEDURES CONTROLLING GENERALIZED FWER AND GENERALIZED FDR , 2007, 0803.2934.

[4]  J. Booth,et al.  Resampling-Based Multiple Testing. , 1994 .

[5]  Joseph P. Romano,et al.  Generalizations of the familywise error rate , 2005, math/0507420.

[6]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Significance analysis of microarrays applied to the ionizing radiation response , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[7]  Yoav Benjamini,et al.  Identifying differentially expressed genes using false discovery rate controlling procedures , 2003, Bioinform..

[8]  J. Hsu,et al.  Applying the Generalized Partitioning Principle to Control the Generalized Familywise Error Rate , 2007, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[9]  A. Tamhane,et al.  Multiple Comparison Procedures , 1989 .

[10]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  THE CONTROL OF THE FALSE DISCOVERY RATE IN MULTIPLE TESTING UNDER DEPENDENCY , 2001 .

[11]  V. Nair,et al.  Edge Detection, Spatial Smoothing, and Image Reconstruction With Partially Observed Multivariate Data , 2003 .

[12]  Gordon K Smyth,et al.  Linear Models and Empirical Bayes Methods for Assessing Differential Expression in Microarray Experiments , 2004, Statistical applications in genetics and molecular biology.

[13]  S. Dudoit,et al.  Comparison of Discrimination Methods for the Classification of Tumors Using Gene Expression Data , 2002 .

[14]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Resampling-based false discovery rate controlling multiple test procedures for correlated test statistics , 1999 .

[15]  S. Dudoit,et al.  Resampling-based multiple testing for microarray data analysis , 2003 .

[16]  John D. Storey,et al.  Empirical Bayes Analysis of a Microarray Experiment , 2001 .

[17]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Adaptive linear step-up procedures that control the false discovery rate , 2006 .

[18]  John D. Storey.  A direct approach to false discovery rates , 2002 .

[19]  S. Holm.  A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure , 1979 .

[20]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .

[21]  A. Tamhane,et al.  Multiple Comparison Procedures , 2009 .