Statistical methods for detecting genomic alterations through array-based comparative genomic hybridization (CGH).

Array-based comparative genomic hybridization (ABCGH) is an emerging high-resolution and high-throughput molecular genetic technique that allows genome-wide screening for chromosome alterations associated with tumorigenesis. Like the cDNA microarrays, ABCGH uses two differentially labeled test and reference DNAs which are cohybridized to cloned genomic fragments immobilized on glass slides. The hybridized DNAs are then detected in two different fluorochromes, and the significant deviation from unity in the ratios of the digitized intensity values is indicative of copy-number differences between the test and reference genomes. Proper statistical analyses need to account for many sources of variation besides genuine differences between the two genomes. In particular, spatial correlations, the variable nature of the ratio variance and non-Normal distribution call for careful statistical modeling. We propose two new statistics, the standard t-statistic and its modification with variances smoothed along the genome, and two tests for each statistic, the standard t-test and a test based on the hybrid adaptive spline (HAS). Simulations indicate that the smoothed t-statistic always improves the performance over the standard t-statistic. The t-tests are more powerful in detecting isolated alterations while those based on HAS are more powerful in detecting a cluster of alterations. We apply the proposed methods to the identification of genomic alterations in endometrium in women with endometriosis.

[1]  Ronald W. Davis,et al.  Quantitative Monitoring of Gene Expression Patterns with a Complementary DNA Microarray , 1995, Science.

[2]  P. Lichter,et al.  Image analysis in comparative genomic hybridization. , 1995, Cytometry.

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

[4]  D. Pinkel,et al.  Comparative Genomic Hybridization for Molecular Cytogenetic Analysis of Solid Tumors , 2022 .

[5]  X. Wang,et al.  Quantitative quality control in microarray image processing and data acquisition. , 2001, Nucleic acids research.

[6]  N. Arens,et al.  Identification of frequent chromosomal aberrations in ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas by comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) , 2000, The Journal of pathology.

[7]  J. M. García-Sagredo,et al.  Hardware and software requirements for quantitative analysis of comparative genomic hybridization. , 1995, Cytometry.

[8]  G. Wahba,et al.  Bootstrap confidence intervals for smoothing splines and their comparison to bayesian confidence intervals , 1995 .

[9]  Peter Lichter,et al.  Minimal sizes of deletions detected by comparative genomic hybridization , 1998, Genes, chromosomes & cancer.

[10]  D Rutovitz,et al.  Computer image analysis of comparative genomic hybridization. , 1995, Cytometry.

[11]  F. Kokocinski,et al.  Automated Screening for Genomic Imbalances using Matrix-Based Comparative Genomic Hybridization , 2002, Laboratory Investigation.

[12]  N. Carter,et al.  Degenerate oligonucleotide-primed PCR: general amplification of target DNA by a single degenerate primer. , 1992, Genomics.

[13]  D Pinkel,et al.  High resolution deletion analysis of constitutional DNA from neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2) patients using microarray-CGH. , 2001, Human molecular genetics.

[14]  H. Döhner,et al.  Matrix‐based comparative genomic hybridization: Biochips to screen for genomic imbalances , 1997, Genes, chromosomes & cancer.

[15]  G. Wahba,et al.  Hybrid Adaptive Splines , 1997 .

[16]  P. Carroll,et al.  Genetic alterations in untreated metastases and androgen-independent prostate cancer detected by comparative genomic hybridization and allelotyping. , 1996, Cancer research.

[17]  Ajay N. Jain,et al.  Assembly of microarrays for genome-wide measurement of DNA copy number , 2001, Nature Genetics.

[18]  C. Lundsteen,et al.  Deletions below 10 megabasepairs are detected in comparative genomic hybridization by standard reference intervals , 1999, Genes, chromosomes & cancer.

[19]  J. Gray,et al.  A t-statistic for objective interpretation of comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) profiles. , 1997, Cytometry.

[20]  Grace Wahba,et al.  Spline Models for Observational Data , 1990 .

[21]  A. Carothers A likelihood-based approach to the estimation of relative DNA copy number by comparative genomic hybridization. , 1997, Biometrics.

[22]  Ajay N. Jain,et al.  Array-based comparative genomic hybridization for the differential diagnosis of renal cell cancer. , 2002, Cancer research.

[23]  S. Dudoit,et al.  Normalization for cDNA microarray data: a robust composite method addressing single and multiple slide systematic variation. , 2002, Nucleic acids research.

[24]  Han G Brunner,et al.  High-throughput analysis of subtelomeric chromosome rearrangements by use of array-based comparative genomic hybridization. , 2002, American journal of human genetics.

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

[26]  W. Kuo,et al.  High resolution analysis of DNA copy number variation using comparative genomic hybridization to microarrays , 1998, Nature Genetics.