In studies that use DNA arrays to assess changes in gene expression, it is preferable to measure the significance of treatment effects on a group of genes from a pathway or functional category such as gene ontology terms (GO terms, http://www.geneontology.org) because this facilitates the interpretation of effects and may markedly increase significance. A modified meta-analysis method to combine p-values was developed to measure the significance of an overall treatment effect on such functionally-defined groups of genes, taking into account the correlation structure among genes. For hypothesis testing that allows gene expression to change in both directions, p-values are calculated under the null distribution generated by a Monte Carlo method. As a test of this procedure, we attempted to distinguish altered pathways in microarray studies performed with Mitochips, oligonucleotide microarrays specific to mitochondrial DNA-encoded transcripts. We found that our analytic method improves the specificity of selection for altered pathways, due to incorporation of the inter-gene correlation structure in each pathway. It is thus a practical method to measure treatment effects on GO groups. In many actual applications, microarray experiments measure treatment effects under complicated design structures and with small sample sizes. For such applications to real data of limited statistical power, and also in computer simulations, we demonstrate that our method gives reasonable test results.

MOTIVATION: Gene class testing (GCT) is a statistical approach to determine whether some functionally predefined classes of genes express differently under two experimental conditions. GCT computes the P-value of each gene class based on the null distribution and the gene classes are ranked for importance in accordance with their P-values. Currently, two null hypotheses have been considered: the Q1 hypothesis tests the relative strength of association with the phenotypes among the gene classes, and the Q2 hypothesis assesses the statistical significance. These two hypotheses are related but not equivalent. METHOD: We investigate three one-sided and two two-sided test statistics under Q1 and Q2. The null distributions of gene classes under Q1 are generated by permuting gene labels and the null distributions under Q2 are generated by permuting samples. RESULTS: We applied the five statistics to a diabetes dataset with 143 gene classes and to a breast cancer dataset with 508 GO (Gene Ontology) terms. In each statistic, the null distributions of the gene classes under Q1 are different from those under Q2 in both datasets, and their rankings can be different too. We clarify the one-sided and two-sided hypotheses, and discuss some issues regarding the Q1 and Q2 hypotheses for gene class ranking in the GCT. Because Q1 does not deal with correlations among genes, we prefer test based on Q2. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

BACKGROUND: Many researchers are concerned with the comparability and reliability of microarray gene expression data. Recent completion of the MicroArray Quality Control (MAQC) project provides a unique opportunity to assess reproducibility across multiple sites and the comparability across multiple platforms. The MAQC analysis presented for the conclusion of inter- and intra-platform comparability/reproducibility of microarray gene expression measurements is inadequate. We evaluate the reproducibility/comparability of the MAQC data for 12901 common genes in four titration samples generated from five high-density one-color microarray platforms and the TaqMan technology. We discuss some of the problems with the use of correlation coefficient as metric to evaluate the inter- and intra-platform reproducibility and the percent of overlapping genes (POG) as a measure for evaluation of a gene selection procedure by MAQC. RESULTS: A total of 293 arrays were used in the intra- and inter-platform analysis. A hierarchical cluster analysis shows distinct differences in the measured intensities among the five platforms. A number of genes show a small fold-change in one platform and a large fold-change in another platform, even though the correlations between platforms are high. An analysis of variance shows thirty percent of gene expressions of the samples show inconsistent patterns across the five platforms. We illustrated that POG does not reflect the accuracy of a selected gene list. A non-overlapping gene can be truly differentially expressed with a stringent cut, and an overlapping gene can be non-differentially expressed with non-stringent cutoff. In addition, POG is an unusable selection criterion. POG can increase or decrease irregularly as cutoff changes; there is no criterion to determine a cutoff so that POG is optimized. CONCLUSION: Using various statistical methods we demonstrate that there are differences in the intensities measured by different platforms and different sites within platform. Within each platform, the patterns of expression are generally consistent, but there is site-by-site variability. Evaluation of data analysis methods for use in regulatory decision should take no treatment effect into consideration, when there is no treatment effect, "a fold-change cutoff with a non-stringent p-value cutoff" could result in 100% false positive error selection.

BACKGROUND: In studies that use DNA arrays to assess changes in gene expression, our goal is to evaluate the statistical significance of treatments on sets of genes. Genes can be grouped by a molecular function, a biological process, or a cellular component, e.g., gene ontology (GO) terms. The meaning of an affected GO group is often clearer than interpretations arising from a list of the statistically significant genes. RESULTS: Computer simulations demonstrated that correlations among genes invalidate many statistical methods that are commonly used to assign significance to GO terms. Ignoring these correlations overstates the statistical significance. Meta-analysis methods for combining p-values were modified to adjust for correlation. One of these methods is elaborated in the context of a comparison between two treatments. The form of the correlation adjustment depends upon the alternative hypothesis. CONCLUSION: Reliable corrections for the effect of correlations among genes on the significance level of a GO term can be constructed for an alternative hypothesis where all transcripts in the GO term increase (decrease) in response to treatment. For general alternatives, which allow some transcripts to increase and others to decrease, the bias of naïve significance calculations can be greatly decreased although not eliminated.

BACKGROUND: Gender differences in gene expression were estimated in liver samples from 9 males and 9 females. The study tested 31,110 genes for a gender difference using a design that adjusted for sources of variation associated with cDNA arrays, normalization, hybridizations and processing conditions. RESULTS: The genes were split into 2,800 that were clearly expressed (expressed genes) and 28,310 that had expression levels in the background range (not expressed genes). The distribution of p-values from the 'not expressed' group was consistent with no gender differences. The distribution of p-values from the 'expressed' group suggested that 8% of these genes differed by gender, but the estimated fold-changes (expression in males/expression in females) were small. The largest observed fold-change was 1.55. The 95% confidence bounds on the estimated fold-changes were less than 1.4 fold for 79.3%, and few (1.1%) exceed 2-fold. CONCLUSION: Observed gender differences in gene expression were small. When selecting genes with gender differences based upon their p-values, false discovery rates exceed 80% for any set of genes, essentially making it impossible to identify any specific genes with a gender difference.

MOTIVATION: A microarray experiment is a multi-step process, and each step is a potential source of variation. There are two major sources of variation: biological variation and technical variation. This study presents a variance-components approach to investigating animal-to-animal, between-array, within-array and day-to-day variations for two data sets. The first data set involved estimation of technical variances for pooled control and pooled treated RNA samples. The variance components included between-array, and two nested within-array variances: between-section (the upper- and lower-sections of the array are replicates) and within-section (two adjacent spots of the same gene are printed within each section). The second experiment was conducted on four different weeks. Each week there were reference and test samples with a dye-flip replicate in two hybridization days. The variance components included week-to-week, animal-to-animal and between-array and within-array variances. RESULTS: We applied the linear mixed-effects model to quantify different sources of variation. In the first data set, we found that the between-array variance is greater than the between-section variance, which, in turn, is greater than the within-section variance. In the second data set, for the reference samples, the week-to-week variance is larger than the between-array variance, which, in turn, is slightly larger than the within-array variance. For the test samples, the week-to-week variance has the largest variation. The animal-to-animal variance is slightly larger than the between-array and within-array variances. However, in a gene-by-gene analysis, the animal-to-animal variance is smaller than the between-array variance in four out of five housekeeping genes. In summary, the largest variation observed is the week-to-week effect. Another important source of variability is the animal-to-animal variation. Finally, we describe the use of variance-component estimates to determine optimal numbers of animals, arrays per animal and sections per array in planning microarray experiments.