Cross-platform comparability of microarray technology: Intra-platform consistency and appropriate data analysis procedures are essential

BackgroundThe acceptance of microarray technology in regulatory decision-making is being challenged by the existence of various platforms and data analysis methods. A recent report (E. Marshall, Science, 306, 630–631, 2004), by extensively citing the study of Tan et al. (Nucleic Acids Res., 31, 5676–5684, 2003), portrays a disturbingly negative picture of the cross-platform comparability, and, hence, the reliability of microarray technology.ResultsWe reanalyzed Tan's dataset and found that the intra-platform consistency was low, indicating a problem in experimental procedures from which the dataset was generated. Furthermore, by using three gene selection methods (i.e., p-value ranking, fold-change ranking, and Significance Analysis of Microarrays (SAM)) on the same dataset we found that p-value ranking (the method emphasized by Tan et al.) results in much lower cross-platform concordance compared to fold-change ranking or SAM. Therefore, the low cross-platform concordance reported in Tan's study appears to be mainly due to a combination of low intra-platform consistency and a poor choice of data analysis procedures, instead of inherent technical differences among different platforms, as suggested by Tan et al. and Marshall.ConclusionOur results illustrate the importance of establishing calibrated RNA samples and reference datasets to objectively assess the performance of different microarray platforms and the proficiency of individual laboratories as well as the merits of various data analysis procedures. Thus, we are progressively coordinating the MAQC project, a community-wide effort for microarray quality control.

[1]  Emanuel F. Petricoin,et al.  Medical applications of microarray technologies: a regulatory science perspective , 2002, Nature Genetics.

[2]  Tao Han,et al.  Microarray scanner calibration curves: characteristics and implications , 2005, BMC Bioinformatics.

[3]  Z. Szallasi,et al.  Sequence-matched probes produce increased cross-platform consistency and more reproducible biological results in microarray-based gene expression measurements. , 2004, Nucleic acids research.

[4]  D. Allison,et al.  Towards sound epistemological foundations of statistical methods for high-dimensional biology , 2004, Nature Genetics.

[5]  Eric P. Hoffman,et al.  Sources of variability and effect of experimental approach on expression profiling data interpretation , 2002, BMC Bioinformatics.

[6]  L. Lesko,et al.  Microarray data—the US FDA, industry and academia , 2003, Nature Biotechnology.

[7]  Richard Weindruch,et al.  A design and statistical perspective on microarray gene expression studies in nutrition: the need for playful creativity and scientific hard-mindedness. , 2003, Nutrition.

[8]  Lucila Ohno-Machado,et al.  Analysis of matched mRNA measurements from two different microarray technologies , 2002, Bioinform..

[9]  Rainer Breitling,et al.  Rank products: a simple, yet powerful, new method to detect differentially regulated genes in replicated microarray experiments , 2004, FEBS letters.

[10]  R. Lempicki,et al.  Evaluation of gene expression measurements from commercial microarray platforms. , 2003, Nucleic acids research.

[11]  Kim Johnson,et al.  QA/QC as a pressing need for microarray analysis: meeting report from CAMDA'02. , 2003, BioTechniques.

[12]  W. E. Orr,et al.  Comparing the use of Affymetrix to spotted oligonucleotide microarrays using two retinal pigment epithelium cell lines. , 2003, Molecular vision.

[13]  Eliot Marshall,et al.  Getting the Noise Out of Gene Arrays , 2004, Science.

[14]  G. Churchill,et al.  A comparison of cDNA, oligonucleotide, and Affymetrix GeneChip gene expression microarray platforms. , 2004, Journal of biomolecular techniques : JBT.

[15]  S. Sealfon,et al.  Accuracy and calibration of commercial oligonucleotide and custom cDNA microarrays. , 2002, Nucleic acids research.

[16]  J. Pronk,et al.  Reproducibility of Oligonucleotide Microarray Transcriptome Analyses , 2002, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[17]  D. Ransohoff.  Bias as a threat to the validity of cancer molecular-marker research , 2005, Nature reviews. Cancer.

[18]  Carole L Yauk,et al.  Comprehensive comparison of six microarray technologies. , 2004, Nucleic acids research.

[19]  Petri Auvinen,et al.  Are data from different gene expression microarray platforms comparable? , 2004, Genomics.

[20]  Weida Tong,et al.  QA/QC: challenges and pitfalls facing the microarray community and regulatory agencies , 2004, Expert review of molecular diagnostics.

[21]  Yudong D. He,et al.  Expression profiling using microarrays fabricated by an ink-jet oligonucleotide synthesizer , 2001, Nature Biotechnology.

[22]  Kristina Hanspers,et al.  Spotted long oligonucleotide arrays for human gene expression analysis. , 2003, Genome research.

[23]  Dennis B. Troup,et al.  NCBI GEO: mining millions of expression profiles—database and tools , 2004, Nucleic Acids Res..

[24]  Natasha V. Raikhel,et al.  Modification of the Data Release Policy for Gene Expression Profiling Experiments , 2004, Plant Physiology.

[25]  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.

[26]  Hans Lehrach,et al.  A comparison of oligonucleotide and cDNA-based microarray systems. , 2004, Physiological genomics.

[27]  R. Shippy,et al.  Performance evaluation of commercial short-oligonucleotide microarrays and the impact of noise in making cross-platform correlations , 2004, BMC Genomics.

[28]  D. Ransohoff.  Lessons from controversy: ovarian cancer screening and serum proteomics. , 2005, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[29]  Harm van Bakel,et al.  In control: systematic assessment of microarray performance , 2004, EMBO reports.