Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Andrew J. Holloway

dblp:78/1745 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2007
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 3 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Bioinformatics and computational biology › gene expression analysis › microarray data analysis
background correction
0.112007
A comparison of background correction methods for two-colour microarrays · Bioinform. 2007
Bioinformatics and computational biology › gene expression analysis
differential expression analysis
0.112007
A comparison of background correction methods for two-colour microarrays · Bioinform. 2007
Bioinformatics and computational biology
gene expression analysis
0.112007
A comparison of background correction methods for two-colour microarrays · Bioinform. 2007
Bioinformatics and computational biology › gene expression analysis
microarray data analysis
0.112007
A comparison of background correction methods for two-colour microarrays · Bioinform. 2007

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

statistical model selection · 0.1convolution model · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2007 A comparison of background correction methods for two-colour microarrays
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.
Matthew E. Ritchie, Jeremy David Silver, Alicia Oshlack, Melissa Holmes, Dileepa S. Diyagama, Andrew J. Holloway, Gordon K. Smyth
Bioinform.6
2006 Statistical analysis of an RNA titration series evaluates microarray precision and sensitivity on a whole-array basis
abstract
BACKGROUND: Concerns are often raised about the accuracy of microarray technologies and the degree of cross-platform agreement, but there are yet no methods which can unambiguously evaluate precision and sensitivity for these technologies on a whole-array basis. RESULTS: A methodology is described for evaluating the precision and sensitivity of whole-genome gene expression technologies such as microarrays. The method consists of an easy-to-construct titration series of RNA samples and an associated statistical analysis using non-linear regression. The method evaluates the precision and responsiveness of each microarray platform on a whole-array basis, i.e., using all the probes, without the need to match probes across platforms. An experiment is conducted to assess and compare four widely used microarray platforms. All four platforms are shown to have satisfactory precision but the commercial platforms are superior for resolving differential expression for genes at lower expression levels. The effective precision of the two-color platforms is improved by allowing for probe-specific dye-effects in the statistical model. The methodology is used to compare three data extraction algorithms for the Affymetrix platforms, demonstrating poor performance for the commonly used proprietary algorithm relative to the other algorithms. For probes which can be matched across platforms, the cross-platform variability is decomposed into within-platform and between-platform components, showing that platform disagreement is almost entirely systematic rather than due to measurement variability. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate good precision and sensitivity for all the platforms, but highlight the need for improved probe annotation. They quantify the extent to which cross-platform measures can be expected to be less accurate than within-platform comparisons for predicting disease progression or outcome.
Andrew J. Holloway, Alicia Oshlack, Dileepa S. Diyagama, David D. L. Bowtell, Gordon K. Smyth
BMC Bioinform.1
2006 Empirical array quality weights in the analysis of microarray data
abstract
BACKGROUND: Assessment of array quality is an essential step in the analysis of data from microarray experiments. Once detected, less reliable arrays are typically excluded or "filtered" from further analysis to avoid misleading results. RESULTS: In this article, a graduated approach to array quality is considered based on empirical reproducibility of the gene expression measures from replicate arrays. Weights are assigned to each microarray by fitting a heteroscedastic linear model with shared array variance terms. A novel gene-by-gene update algorithm is used to efficiently estimate the array variances. The inverse variances are used as weights in the linear model analysis to identify differentially expressed genes. The method successfully assigns lower weights to less reproducible arrays from different experiments. Down-weighting the observations from suspect arrays increases the power to detect differential expression. In smaller experiments, this approach outperforms the usual method of filtering the data. The method is available in the limma software package which is implemented in the R software environment. CONCLUSION: This method complements existing normalisation and spot quality procedures, and allows poorer quality arrays, which would otherwise be discarded, to be included in an analysis. It is applicable to microarray data from experiments with some level of replication.
Matthew E. Ritchie, Dileepa S. Diyagama, Jody Neilson, Ryan van Laar, Alexander Dobrovic, Andrew J. Holloway, Gordon K. Smyth
BMC Bioinform.6