MOTIVATION: For Affymetrix microarray platforms, gene expression is determined by computing the difference in signal intensities between perfect match (PM) and mismatch (MM) probesets. Although the use of PM is not controversial, MM probesets have been associated with variance and ultimately inaccurate gene expression calls. A principal focus of this study was to investigate the nature of the MM signal intensities and demonstrate its contribution to the experimental results. RESULTS: While most MM intensities were likely associated with random noise, a subset of approximately 20% (99,485) of the MM probes displayed relatively high signal intensities to the corresponding PM probes (MM > PM) in a non-random fashion; 13,440 of these probes demonstrated exceptionally high 'outlier' intensities. About 15,938 PM probes also demonstrated exceptionally high outlier intensities consistently across all hybridizations. About 92% of the MM > PM probes had either a dThymidine (dT) or a dCytidine (dC) at the 13th position of the probe sequence. MM and PM probes displaying extremely high outlier intensities contained high dC rich nucleotides, and low dA contents at other nucleotides positions along the 25mer probe sequence. Differentially expressed genes generated using Genechip Operating System (GCOS) or modified PM-only methods were also examined. Of those candidate genes identified in the PM-only method, 157 of them were designated by GCOS as absent across all datasets and many others contained probes with MM > PM signal intensities. Our data suggests that MM intensity from PM signal can be a major source of error analysis, leading to fewer potentially biologically important candidate genes. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

MOTIVATION: Spot intensity serves as a proxy for gene expression in dual-label microarray experiments. Dye bias is defined as an intensity difference between samples labeled with different dyes attributable to the dyes instead of the gene expression in the samples. Dye bias that is not removed by array normalization can introduce bias into comparisons between samples of interest. But if the bias is consistent across samples for the same gene, it can be corrected by proper experimental design and analysis. If the dye bias is not consistent across samples for the same gene, but is different for different samples, then removing the bias becomes more problematic, perhaps indicating a technical limitation to the ability of fluorescent signals to accurately represent gene expression. Thus, it is important to characterize dye bias to determine: (1) whether it will be removed for all genes by array normalization, (2) whether it will not be removed by normalization but can be removed by proper experimental design and analysis and (3) whether dye bias correction is more problematic than either of these and is not easily removable. RESULTS: We analyzed two large (each >27 arrays) tissue culture experiments with extensive dye swap arrays to better characterize dye bias. Indirect, amino-allyl labeling was used in both experiments. We found that post-normalization dye bias that is consistent across samples does appear to exist for many genes, and that controlling and correcting for this type of dye bias in design and analysis is advisable. The extent of this type of dye bias remained unchanged under a wide range of normalization methods (median-centering, various loess normalizations) and statistical analysis techniques (parametric, rank based, permutation based, etc.). We also found dye bias related to the individual samples for a much smaller subset of genes. But these sample-specific dye biases appeared to have minimal impact on estimated gene-expression differences between the cell lines.