Peixoto Bernardo R, Vêncio Ricardo Z N, Egidio Camila M, Mota-Vieira Luisa, Verjovski-Almeida Sergio, Reis Eduardo M
Departamento de Matemática, Universidade dos Açores, 9501-801 Ponta Delgada, Açores, Portugal.
BMC Genomics. 2006 Feb 24;7:35. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-7-35.
Spotted cDNA microarrays generally employ co-hybridization of fluorescently-labeled RNA targets to produce gene expression ratios for subsequent analysis. Direct comparison of two RNA samples in the same microarray provides the highest level of accuracy; however, due to the number of combinatorial pair-wise comparisons, the direct method is impractical for studies including large number of individual samples (e.g., tumor classification studies). For such studies, indirect comparisons using a common reference standard have been the preferred method. Here we evaluated the precision and accuracy of reconstructed ratios from three indirect methods relative to ratios obtained from direct hybridizations, herein considered as the gold-standard.
We performed hybridizations using a fixed amount of Cy3-labeled reference oligonucleotide (RefOligo) against distinct Cy5-labeled targets from prostate, breast and kidney tumor samples. Reconstructed ratios between all tissue pairs were derived from ratios between each tissue sample and RefOligo. Reconstructed ratios were compared to (i) ratios obtained in parallel from direct pair-wise hybridizations of tissue samples, and to (ii) reconstructed ratios derived from hybridization of each tissue against a reference RNA pool (RefPool). To evaluate the effect of the external references, reconstructed ratios were also calculated directly from intensity values of single-channel (One-Color) measurements derived from tissue sample data collected in the RefOligo experiments. We show that the average coefficient of variation of ratios between intra- and inter-slide replicates derived from RefOligo, RefPool and One-Color were similar and 2 to 4-fold higher than ratios obtained in direct hybridizations. Correlation coefficients calculated for all three tissue comparisons were also similar. In addition, the performance of all indirect methods in terms of their robustness to identify genes deemed as differentially expressed based on direct hybridizations, as well as false-positive and false-negative rates, were found to be comparable.
RefOligo produces ratios as precise and accurate as ratios reconstructed from a RNA pool, thus representing a reliable alternative in reference-based hybridization experiments. In addition, One-Color measurements alone can reconstruct expression ratios without loss in precision or accuracy. We conclude that both methods are adequate options in large-scale projects where the amount of a common reference RNA pool is usually restrictive.
斑点cDNA微阵列通常采用荧光标记RNA靶标的共杂交来产生基因表达比率,以供后续分析。在同一微阵列中对两个RNA样本进行直接比较可提供最高水平的准确性;然而,由于组合成对比较的数量众多,直接方法对于包含大量个体样本的研究(例如肿瘤分类研究)并不实用。对于此类研究,使用共同参考标准的间接比较一直是首选方法。在此,我们评估了三种间接方法重建比率相对于直接杂交获得的比率(在此视为金标准)的精度和准确性。
我们使用固定量的Cy3标记参考寡核苷酸(RefOligo)与来自前列腺、乳腺和肾肿瘤样本的不同Cy5标记靶标进行杂交。所有组织对之间的重建比率源自每个组织样本与RefOligo之间的比率。将重建比率与(i)从组织样本的直接成对杂交中平行获得的比率进行比较,并与(ii)从每个组织与参考RNA池(RefPool)杂交中获得的重建比率进行比较。为了评估外部参考的影响,还直接根据RefOligo实验中收集的组织样本数据的单通道(单色)测量强度值计算重建比率。我们表明,来自RefOligo、RefPool和单色的片内和片间重复比率的平均变异系数相似,比直接杂交获得的比率高2至4倍。所有三种组织比较计算的相关系数也相似。此外,发现所有间接方法在识别基于直接杂交被视为差异表达的基因的稳健性以及假阳性和假阴性率方面的表现相当。
RefOligo产生的比率与从RNA池重建的比率一样精确和准确,因此是基于参考的杂交实验中的可靠替代方法。此外,仅单色测量就可以重建表达比率,而不会损失精度或准确性。我们得出结论,在大规模项目中,这两种方法都是合适的选择,因为共同参考RNA池的量通常是有限的。