Cited by 907Gene expression and cancer classificationBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

A comparison of background correction methods for two-colour microarrays

Open access
Ritchie, Matthew E., Silver, Jeremy, Oshlack, Alicia, Holmes, Melissa, Diyagama, Dileepa, Holloway, Andrew, Smyth, Gordon K.·2007·Bioinformatics

Abstract

MOTIVATION: Microarray data must be background corrected to remove the effects of non-specific binding or spatial heterogeneity across the array, but this practice typically causes other problems such as negative corrected intensities and high variability of low intensity log-ratios. Different estimators of background, and various model-based processing methods, are compared in this study in search of the best option for differential expression analyses of small microarray experiments. RESULTS: Using data where some independent truth in gene expression is known, eight different background correction alternatives are compared, in terms of precision and bias of the resulting gene expression measures, and in terms of their ability to detect differentially expressed genes as judged by two popular algorithms, SAM and limma eBayes. A new background processing method (normexp) is introduced which is based on a convolution model. The model-based correction methods are shown to be markedly superior to the usual practice of subtracting local background estimates. Methods which stabilize the variances of the log-ratios along the intensity range perform the best. The normexp+offset method is found to give the lowest false discovery rate overall, followed by morph and vsn. Like vsn, normexp is applicable to most types of two-colour microarray data. AVAILABILITY: The background correction methods compared in this article are available in the R package limma (Smyth, 2005) from http://www.bioconductor.org. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available from http://bioinf.wehi.edu.au/resources/webReferences.html.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/bioinformatics/btm412

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ritchie, M. E., Silver, J., Oshlack, A., Holmes, M., Diyagama, D., Holloway, A., & Smyth, G. K.
Affiliations
Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research (AU)
Corresponding author
Smyth, Gordon K.
Venue
Bioinformatics
Published
2007-08-25
Volume
23
Issue
20
Pages
2700-2707
ISSN
  • 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
  • 1367-4811
OpenAlex
W2164216268
Cited by
907
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 43 · 2016: 66 · 2015: 80 · 2014: 76 · 2013: 115 · 2012: 85
FWCI
19.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Bioinformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Keywords
background correction, differential gene expression, convolution model, false discovery rate, SAM, morphs
MeSH terms
Image Enhancement, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Artifacts, In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence, Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis, Microscopy, Fluorescence, Multiphoton

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review