dChip Background correction
1
0
Entering edit mode
Ann Hess ▴ 340
@ann-hess-251
Last seen 10.2 years ago
Hello, I would like to follow up on a discussion of how to best mimic dchip analysis in BioConductor. Web documentation for the dchip PM-only algorithm states that normalization is based on the ORIGINAL PM and MM data, and the background correction is performed AFTER normalization for the PM-only model. (http://biosun1.harvard.edu/complab/dchip/pm%20only.htm) Based on the order of operations used by expresso (1-background correction, 2-normalization, 3- probe specific background correction, 4- summary into expression measure), it does not seem possible to Normalize the data (using invariant set algorithm) and then background correct (using mas algorithm) to exactly mimic the dchip implementation. So, it seems unclear as to whether or bg.correct=FALSE or bgcorrect.method="mas" is more appropriate. Is there a way to change the order of operations for expresso? Ann On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, Ben Bolstad wrote: > Actually I believe that it is a slightly modified version of the MAS > background that is used in dChip. They use a 10 by 10 grid rather than 4 > by 4. > > Ben > > > On Wed, 2004-09-29 at 08:37, Lizhe Xu wrote: >> Hi, >> The Li and Wong method uses the .cel file generated by MAS. What I believed the bg.correct=MAS in order to exactly mimic it. >> I don't know why to use bg.correct=FALSE in your analysis. >> >> Thanks. >> >> L. >> >> Ann, >> >> A more exact way to mimic the Li and Wong method with the command >> expresso is: >> expresso(affybatch, normalize.method="invariantset", >> bg.correct=FALSE, pmcorrect.method="subtractmm", >> summary.method="liwong") >> >> As you say, Li and Wong state their model as: >> PM_ij - v_j = Theta_i*phi_j + e >> with v_j a background term. >> >> (One can note that is currently disputed >> whether MM_ij is an appropriate background term or not.) >> >> >> remark: If you use this often you can make your own wrapper >> liandwong <- function(abatch, ...) { >> expresso(affybatch, normalize.method="invariantset", >> bg.correct=FALSE, pmcorrect.method="subtractmm", >> summary.method="liwong", ...) >> } >> >> Hoping this helps, >> >> >> L. >> >> >> Ann Hess wrote: >>> I was wondering if there was a way to obtain background (or non- specific >>> binding) corrected values for the Li Wong PMonly method. Li and Wong >>> state their model as PM_ij = v_j + Theta_i*phi_j + e. Is it possible to >>> find the value PM_ij - v_j? >>> >>> Is the command: >>> expresso(affybatch.example,normalize.method="invariantset", >>> bg.correct=FALSE,pmcorrect.method="pmonly",summary.method="liwong") >>> making this "background correction"? >>> The background term cancels for the PM-MM model, but not for the PM only >>> model. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Ann >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Bioconductor mailing list >>> Bioconductor@stat.math.ethz.ch >>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioconductor >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bioconductor mailing list >> Bioconductor@stat.math.ethz.ch >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioconductor > -- > Ben Bolstad <bolstad@stat.berkeley.edu> > http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~bolstad > >
Normalization probe Normalization probe • 1.3k views
ADD COMMENT
0
Entering edit mode
@stecalzatiscaliit-259
Last seen 10.2 years ago
Hi. I'm using affyPLM models to check for some array quality. Here you can see the plots of the residuals www.med.unibs.it/dip/dip_SBB/sez_statist/calza/bioinfo So, afaik some of those chip look a bit suspicious to, i.e. LptMOE8 and LptMOE9 and also LptMOE11 and LptMOE12. How should I interpret those "stains"? Are this array that bad? Is it reasonable to exclude those probes from the analyses (and is it possible)? TIA, Stefano
ADD COMMENT
0
Entering edit mode
Spend some time comparing your images to these (particularly some of the full dataset images): http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~bolstad/PLMImageGallery/index.html Also make sure you look at the the NUSE and RLE plots (boxplot() and Mbox() in affyPLM) these will help you decide if any of the chips are discordant. Thanks, Ben On Tue, 2004-10-12 at 04:56, Stefano Calza wrote: > Hi. > > I'm using affyPLM models to check for some array quality. Here you can see the plots of the residuals > > www.med.unibs.it/dip/dip_SBB/sez_statist/calza/bioinfo > > So, afaik some of those chip look a bit suspicious to, i.e. LptMOE8 and LptMOE9 and also LptMOE11 and LptMOE12. How should I interpret those > "stains"? Are this array that bad? Is it reasonable to exclude those probes from the analyses (and is it possible)? > > TIA, > Stefano > > _______________________________________________ > Bioconductor mailing list > Bioconductor@stat.math.ethz.ch > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioconductor -- Ben Bolstad <bolstad@stat.berkeley.edu> http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~bolstad
ADD REPLY
0
Entering edit mode
I am sorry it may sound silly. But I can't find useful information about affyPLM package in bioconductor site. It seems useful to check array quality for some artifac. Anyone can refer me to documentation of this package. Thanks a lot! fangxin > Spend some time comparing your images to these (particularly some of the > full dataset images): > > http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~bolstad/PLMImageGallery/index.html > > Also make sure you look at the the NUSE and RLE plots (boxplot() and > Mbox() in affyPLM) these will help you decide if any of the chips are > discordant. > > Thanks, > > Ben > > > > > > > On Tue, 2004-10-12 at 04:56, Stefano Calza wrote: >> Hi. >> >> I'm using affyPLM models to check for some array quality. Here you can >> see the plots of the residuals >> >> www.med.unibs.it/dip/dip_SBB/sez_statist/calza/bioinfo >> >> So, afaik some of those chip look a bit suspicious to, i.e. LptMOE8 and >> LptMOE9 and also LptMOE11 and LptMOE12. How should I interpret those >> "stains"? Are this array that bad? Is it reasonable to exclude those >> probes from the analyses (and is it possible)? >> >> TIA, >> Stefano >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bioconductor mailing list >> Bioconductor@stat.math.ethz.ch >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioconductor > -- > Ben Bolstad <bolstad@stat.berkeley.edu> > http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~bolstad > > _______________________________________________ > Bioconductor mailing list > Bioconductor@stat.math.ethz.ch > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioconductor > > -- Fangxin Hong, Ph.D. Plant Biology Laboratory The Salk Institute 10010 N. Torrey Pines Rd. La Jolla, CA 92037 E-mail: fhong@salk.edu
ADD REPLY

Login before adding your answer.

Traffic: 361 users visited in the last hour
Help About
FAQ
Access RSS
API
Stats

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Powered by the version 2.3.6