Cited by 442Gene expression and cancer classificationBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics

Using control genes to correct for unwanted variation in microarray data

Open access
Gagnon-Bartsch, J. A., Speed, T. P.·2012·Biostatistics

Abstract

Microarray expression studies suffer from the problem of batch effects and other unwanted variation. Many methods have been proposed to adjust microarray data to mitigate the problems of unwanted variation. Several of these methods rely on factor analysis to infer the unwanted variation from the data. A central problem with this approach is the difficulty in discerning the unwanted variation from the biological variation that is of interest to the researcher. We present a new method, intended for use in differential expression studies, that attempts to overcome this problem by restricting the factor analysis to negative control genes. Negative control genes are genes known a priori not to be differentially expressed with respect to the biological factor of interest. Variation in the expression levels of these genes can therefore be assumed to be unwanted variation. We name this method "Remove Unwanted Variation, 2-step" (RUV-2). We discuss various techniques for assessing the performance of an adjustment method and compare the performance of RUV-2 with that of other commonly used adjustment methods such as Combat and Surrogate Variable Analysis (SVA). We present several example studies, each concerning genes differentially expressed with respect to gender in the brain and find that RUV-2 performs as well or better than other methods. Finally, we discuss the possibility of adapting RUV-2 for use in studies not concerned with differential expression and conclude that there may be promise but substantial challenges remain.

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/biostatistics/kxr034

Cites

35 of 35 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?

  • In large-scale RNA-seq studies, commonly used normalization methods (cqn, EDASeq, RUV2, sva, PEER) differ in how well they remove systematic biases, depending on sample complexity and initial data quality.

    “commonly used methods fornormalization (cqn, EDASeq, RUV2, sva, PEER) varied in their ability to remove these systematic biases, depending on sample complexity and initial data quality.”
  • RUV2 with ERCC spike-ins removed on average about 20% of false positives and was more effective at sites with already low false positive rates (ILM4, ILM5).

    “The application of RUV2 with ERCC spike-ins (RUV2-ERCC), which tries to remove confounding factors based on a control set of synthetic RNAs assessed across sites, on average removes just 20% of false positives on average, but is more effective for sites that already have relatively low false positive rates (ILM4, ILM5).”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. BISHOP, C. M. (2006). Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning. New York: Springer.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gagnon-Bartsch, J. A., & Speed, T. P.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research (AU)
Corresponding author
Gagnon-Bartsch, J. A.
Venue
Biostatistics
Published
2011-11-17
Volume
13
Issue
3
Pages
539-552
ISSN
  • 1465-4644 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-4357
OpenAlex
W2116650193
Cited by
442
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 58 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 46 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 7
FWCI
5.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biostatistics (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UC Berkeley (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Cancer Institute (U24CA126551)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM083084)
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 › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
Keywords
batch effects, microarray normalization, factor analysis, differential gene expression, combat, surrogate variable analysis, brain gene expression, sex differences
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis, Gene Expression Profiling

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