ArticleBMC bioinformatics2009
Comparison of Affymetrix data normalization methods using 6,926 experiments across five array generations.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- How far are we from the era of big data in transcriptomics? Lessons from the bacterial data in GEO.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Review
- Endocrine resistant breast cancer cells with loss of ERα expression retain proliferative ability by reducing caspase7-mediated HDAC3 cleavage.Cellular oncology (Dordrecht, Netherlands) · 2020Article
- Oncogenic functions of protein kinase D2 and D3 in regulating multiple cancer-related pathways in breast cancer.Cancer medicine · 2019Article
- Identification of RPL5 and RPL10 as novel diagnostic biomarkers of Atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumors.Cancer cell international · 2018Article
- Generating a robust prediction model for stage I lung adenocarcinoma recurrence after surgical resection.Oncotarget · 2017Article
- Meta-analysis approach as a gene selection method in class prediction: does it improve model performance? A case study in acute myeloid leukemia.BMC bioinformatics · 2017Article
- Article
- A feature selection method based on multiple kernel learning with expression profiles of different types.BioData mining · 2017Article
- Comparison of pre-processing methods for multiplex bead-based immunoassays.BMC genomics · 2016Article
- A six-microRNA set as prognostic indicators for bile duct cancer.International journal of clinical and experimental medicine · 2015Article
- Biclustering methods: biological relevance and application in gene expression analysis.PloS one · 2014Article
- Quality Visualization of Microarray Datasets Using Circos.Microarrays (Basel, Switzerland) · 2012Article
- Classification of unknown primary tumors with a data-driven method based on a large microarray reference database.Genome medicine · 2011Article
- Alignment of gene expression profiles from test samples against a reference database: New method for context-specific interpretation of microarray data.BioData mining · 2011Article
- Experimental design, preprocessing, normalization and differential expression analysis of small RNA sequencing experiments.Silence · 2011Article
- Characterization of non-specific cytotoxic cell receptor protein 1: a new member of the lectin-type subfamily of F-box proteins.PloS one · 2011Article
- Analysis of kinase gene expression patterns across 5681 human tissue samples reveals functional genomic taxonomy of the kinome.PloS one · 2010Article
- Microarray meta-analysis database (M(2)DB): a uniformly pre-processed, quality controlled, and manually curated human clinical microarray database.BMC bioinformatics · 2010Article
- Array-based gene expression, CGH and tissue data defines a 12q24 gain in neuroblastic tumors with prognostic implication.BMC cancer · 2010Article
- Impact of missing value imputation on classification for DNA microarray gene expression data--a model-based study.EURASIP journal on bioinformatics & systems biology · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGene expression microarray technologies are widely used across most areas of biological and medical research. Comparing and integrating microarray data from different experiments would be very useful, but is currently very challenging due to the experimental and hybridization conditions, as well as data preprocessing and normalization methods. Furthermore, even in the case of the widely-used, industry-standard Affymetrix oligonucleotide microarrays, the various array generations have different probe sets representing different genes, hindering the data integration.
resultsIn this study our objective is to find systematic approaches to normalize the data emerging from different Affymetrix array generations and from different laboratories. We compare and assess the accuracy of five normalization methods for Affymetrix gene expression data using 6,926 Affymetrix experiments from five array generations. The methods that we compare include 1) standardization, 2) housekeeping gene based normalization, 3) equalized quantile normalization, 4) Weibull distribution based normalization and 5) array generation based gene centering. Our results indicate that the best results are achieved when the data is normalized first within a sample and then between-samples with Array Generation based gene Centering (AGC) normalization.
conclusionWe conclude that with the AGC method integrating different Affymetrix datasets results in values that are significantly more comparable across the array generations than in the cases where no array generation based normalization is used. The AGC method was found to be the best method for normalizing the data from several different array generations, and achieve comparable gene values across thousands of samples.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.