There are two ways to approach this problem. First, you can go the easy way, which is to note that the probeset IDs on the HT_HG-U133_PLUS_PM arrays are identical to those on the conventional U133_Plus2 array, except for the addition of an extra _PM in the probeset name. Because obviously Affy would want to do something like that. There are some small differences in that there are fewer probes for some probesets (and obviously no MM probes), but altogether, other than 40 extra QC probes, the arrays are very similar. And are intended to measure the same thing.
So you could just process the data as normal, then remove all the '_PM's from the probeset IDs and use the hgu133plus2.db package to annotate. That's probably what I would do.
An alternative would be to get the annotation csv file and then build your own annotation package. We can certainly help you with that task, but would need more information than 'I could not do it', which could mean any number of things.
In other words, this is an old array that you can't really get any more, so it's not in anybody's interest to make the annotation package, especially since you could make do with an existing one. So you will have to do the legwork to make it. If you show what code you used to try to make the package on your own, then we can give pointers as to where you went wrong. But like I said, it's way easier to just use the existing annotation package.
Thanks much James for the help. It is extremely helpful. One final question is if I remove probeset IDs with "_PM", would I remove any important probedetIDs which are extremely important? I am just curious to know about this.
I really appreciate all your help. I am extremely happy with all your suggestions/advice.
Best,
Prat
You misunderstand. I didn't say to remove probesets with _PM in their name, instead I said you should remove all the _PMs from the probeset names. As an example, say you processed your data and now have it in an object called 'eset'. You could then do
Oh got you. Thanks much again for the help.