Robustness of Exon CGH Array Designs

Array-comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) technology enables rapid, high-resolution analysis of genomic rearrangements. With the use of it, genome copy number changes and rearrangement breakpoints can be detected and analyzed at resolutions down to a few kilobases. An exon array CGH approach proposed recently accurately measures copy-number changes of individual exons in the human genome. The crucial and highly non-trivial starting task is the design of an array, i.e. the choice of appropriate (multi)set of oligos. The success of the whole high-level analysis depends on the quality of the design. Also, the comparison of several alternative designs of array CGH constitutes an important step in development of new diagnostic chip. In this paper we deal with these two often neglected issues. We propose new approach to measure the quality of array CGH designs. Our measures reflect the robustness of rearrangements detection to the noise (mostly experimental measurement error). The method is parametrized by the segmentation algorithm used to identify aberrations. We implemented the efficient Monte Carlo method for testing noise robustness within DNAcopy procedure. Developed framework has been applied to evaluation of functional quality of several optimized array designs.

[1]  Y. Yurov,et al.  Chromosomal mosaicism goes global , 2008, Molecular Cytogenetics.

[2]  J. Lupski,et al.  Genomic disorders ten years on , 2009, Genome Medicine.

[3]  L. D. White,et al.  Comparative genomic hybridisation using a proximal 17p BAC/PAC array detects rearrangements responsible for four genomic disorders , 2004, Journal of Medical Genetics.

[4]  Ramón Díaz-Uriarte,et al.  ADaCGH: A Parallelized Web-Based Application and R Package for the Analysis of aCGH Data , 2007, PloS one.

[5]  J W Gray,et al.  Design considerations for array CGH to oligonucleotide arrays , 2005, Cytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology.

[6]  Sophie Lemoine,et al.  An evaluation of custom microarray applications: the oligonucleotide design challenge , 2009, Nucleic acids research.

[7]  Jane Fridlyand,et al.  Bioinformatics Original Paper a Comparison Study: Applying Segmentation to Array Cgh Data for Downstream Analyses , 2022 .

[8]  Johan Staaf,et al.  Normalization of array-CGH data: influence of copy number imbalances , 2007, BMC Genomics.

[9]  Yonatan Aumann,et al.  Efficient Calculation of Interval Scores for DNA Copy Number Data Analysis , 2005, RECOMB.

[10]  Oswaldo Trelles,et al.  Supervised Lowess normalization of comparative genome hybridization data – application to lactococcal strain comparisons , 2008, BMC Bioinformatics.

[11]  John Law,et al.  Robust Statistics—The Approach Based on Influence Functions , 1986 .

[12]  J Piper,et al.  Comparative analysis of comparative genomic hybridization microarray technologies: report of a workshop sponsored by the Wellcome Trust. , 2002, Cytometry.

[13]  David P. Kreil,et al.  There is no silver bullet - a guide to low-level data transforms and normalisation methods for microarray data , 2005, Briefings Bioinform..

[14]  Marina Baldi,et al.  Genome profiling of ovarian adenocarcinomas using pangenomic BACs microarray comparative genomic hybridization , 2008, Molecular Cytogenetics.

[15]  Zhenyu Jia,et al.  Evaluating oligonucleotide properties for DNA microarray probe design , 2010, Nucleic acids research.

[16]  Wing Hung Wong,et al.  Array comparative genome hybridization for tumor classification and gene discovery in mouse models of malignant melanoma. , 2003, Cancer research.

[17]  Francis Galibert,et al.  Construction of a 2-Mb resolution BAC microarray for CGH analysis of canine tumors. , 2005, Genome research.

[18]  A. Tsalenko,et al.  The fine-scale and complex architecture of human copy-number variation. , 2008, American journal of human genetics.

[19]  Peter Webb,et al.  Designing Specific Oligonucleotide Probes for the Entire S. cerevisiae Transcriptome , 2002, WABI.

[20]  Bradley P. Coe,et al.  Resolving the resolution of array CGH. , 2007, Genomics.

[21]  Yuan Jiang,et al.  Erratum: A probe-density-based analysis method for array CGH data: Simulation, normalization and centralization (Bioinformatics (2008) vol. 24 (16) (1749-1756)) , 2008 .

[22]  Ash A. Alizadeh,et al.  Genome-wide analysis of DNA copy-number changes using cDNA microarrays , 1999, Nature Genetics.

[23]  Yonatan Aumann,et al.  Optimization of probe coverage for high-resolution oligonucleotide aCGH , 2007, Bioinform..

[24]  M. Wigler,et al.  Circular binary segmentation for the analysis of array-based DNA copy number data. , 2004, Biostatistics.

[25]  Howard L. McLeod,et al.  wuHMM: a robust algorithm to detect DNA copy number variation using long oligonucleotide microarray data , 2008, Nucleic acids research.

[26]  Sanjay Ranka,et al.  Gene expression Distance-based clustering of CGH data , 2006 .

[27]  Yuhang Wang,et al.  Tumor classification based on DNA copy number aberrations determined using SNP arrays. , 2006, Oncology reports.

[28]  J. Fridlyand,et al.  Rare amplicons implicate frequent deregulation of cell fate specification pathways in oral squamous cell carcinoma , 2005, Oncogene.

[29]  Marcel J. T. Reinders,et al.  SIRAC: Supervised Identification of Regions of Aberration in aCGH datasets , 2007, BMC Bioinformatics.

[30]  Robert Kincaid,et al.  Comparative genomic hybridization using oligonucleotide microarrays and total genomic DNA. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[31]  Yonina C. Eldar,et al.  A fast and flexible method for the segmentation of aCGH data , 2008, ECCB.