Numerous statistical pipelines are now available for the differential analysis of gene expression measured with RNA-sequencing technology. Most of them are based on similar statistical frameworks after normalization, differing primarily in the choice of data distribution, mean and variance estimation strategy and data filtering. We propose an evaluation of the impact of these choices when few biological replicates are available through the use of synthetic data sets. This framework is based on real data sets and allows the exploration of various scenarios differing in the proportion of non-differentially expressed genes. Hence, it provides an evaluation of the key ingredients of the differential analysis, free of the biases associated with the simulation of data using parametric models. Our results show the relevance of a proper modeling of the mean by using linear or generalized linear modeling. Once the mean is properly modeled, the impact of the other parameters on the performance of the test is much less important. Finally, we propose to use the simple visualization of the raw P-value histogram as a practical evaluation criterion of the performance of differential analysis methods on real data sets.

MOTIVATION: In recent years, gene expression studies have increasingly made use of high-throughput sequencing technology. In turn, research concerning the appropriate statistical methods for the analysis of digital gene expression (DGE) has flourished, primarily in the context of normalization and differential analysis. RESULTS: In this work, we focus on the question of clustering DGE profiles as a means to discover groups of co-expressed genes. We propose a Poisson mixture model using a rigorous framework for parameter estimation as well as the choice of the appropriate number of clusters. We illustrate co-expression analyses using our approach on two real RNA-seq datasets. A set of simulation studies also compares the performance of the proposed model with that of several related approaches developed to cluster RNA-seq or serial analysis of gene expression data. AVAILABILITY AND AND IMPLEMENTATION: The proposed method is implemented in the open-source R package HTSCluster, available on CRAN. CONTACT: [email protected] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

BACKGROUND: Chromatin immunoprecipitation coupled with hybridization to a tiling array (ChIP-chip) is a cost-effective and routinely used method to identify protein-DNA interactions or chromatin/histone modifications. The robust identification of ChIP-enriched regions is frequently complicated by noisy measurements. This identification can be improved by accounting for dependencies between adjacent probes on chromosomes and by modeling of biological replicates. RESULTS: MultiChIPmixHMM is a user-friendly R package to analyse ChIP-chip data modeling spatial dependencies between directly adjacent probes on a chromosome and enabling a simultaneous analysis of replicates. It is based on a linear regression mixture model, designed to perform a joint modeling of immunoprecipitated and input measurements. CONCLUSION: We show the utility of MultiChIPmixHMM by analyzing histone modifications of Arabidopsis thaliana. MultiChIPmixHMM is implemented in R and including functions in C, freely available from the CRAN web site: http://cran.r-project.org.

BACKGROUND: Most microarray studies are made using labelling with one or two dyes which allows the hybridization of one or two samples on the same slide. In such experiments, the most frequently used dyes are Cy3 and Cy5. Recent improvements in the technology (dye-labelling, scanner and, image analysis) allow hybridization up to four samples simultaneously. The two additional dyes are Alexa488 and Alexa494. The triple-target or four-target technology is very promising, since it allows more flexibility in the design of experiments, an increase in the statistical power when comparing gene expressions induced by different conditions and a scaled down number of slides. However, there have been few methods proposed for statistical analysis of such data. Moreover the lowess correction of the global dye effect is available for only two-color experiments, and even if its application can be derived, it does not allow simultaneous correction of the raw data. RESULTS: We propose a two-step normalization procedure for triple-target experiments. First the dye bleeding is evaluated and corrected if necessary. Then the signal in each channel is normalized using a generalized lowess procedure to correct a global dye bias. The normalization procedure is validated using triple-self experiments and by comparing the results of triple-target and two-color experiments. Although the focus is on triple-target microarrays, the proposed method can be used to normalize p differently labelled targets co-hybridized on a same array, for any value of p greater than 2. CONCLUSION: The proposed normalization procedure is effective: the technical biases are reduced, the number of false positives is under control in the analysis of differentially expressed genes, and the triple-target experiments are more powerful than the corresponding two-color experiments. There is room for improving the microarray experiments by simultaneously hybridizing more than two samples.

MOTIVATION: In cDNA microarray experiments all samples are labeled with either Cy3 or Cy5. Systematic and gene-specific dye bias effects have been observed in dual-color experiments. In contrast to systematic effects which can be corrected by a normalization method, the gene-specific dye bias is not completely suppressed and may alter the conclusions about the differentially expressed genes. METHODS: The gene-specific dye bias is taken into account using an analysis of variance model. We propose an index, named label bias index, to measure the gene-specific dye bias. It requires at least two self-self hybridization cDNA microarrays. RESULTS: After lowess normalization we have found that the gene-specific dye bias is the major source of experimental variability between replicates. The ratio (R/G) may exceed 2. As a consequence false positive genes may be found in direct comparison without dye-swap. The stability of this artifact and its consequences on gene variance and on direct or indirect comparisons are addressed. AVAILABILITY: http://www.inapg.inra.fr/ens_rech/mathinfo/recherche/mathematique

We would like to thank K. Dobbin, J. Shih and R. Simon for their comments about Martin-Magniette et al. (2005). Their remarks relate to the design of microarray experiments and notably about the use of dye-swaps. We, however, want to make it clear that our manuscript primarily focuses on the detection, quantification and correction of the gene-specific dye-bias introduced in dual-color microarray experiments. The most important point in Martin-Magniette et al. (2005) is the following: by dint of studying technical errors, we will be able to identify and then to remove most of them. For the first time, in Martin-Magniette et al. (2005), we were able to quantify the gene-specific dye bias by calculating the Labelling Bias Index, (LBI). The LBI measured on different array types shows that this artifact seems to be very low in some cases and could be thus neglected. However, it is high in other cases and it cannot thus be neglected for data issued from these array types. This measure is of crucial importance as it allows users to evaluate the impact of this bias on their data. Moreover, we think that each platform should at least know in what class it belongs for each array types. Although this artifact is not lowered nor understood, it is simply dangerous to underestimate it. The gene-specific dye bias is not an inevitability and can be well controlled, as we point out in our paper. Recently, in another paper, Dobbin et al. (2005) studied the gene-specific dye bias. Although they reached the same conclusions, some of their remarks are explained in Martin-Magniette et al. (2005): e.g. Dobbin et al. (2005) have found that ‘(the gene-specific) dye bias appears to have masked the true differential expression’. This is explained in Martin-Magniette et al. (2005): the variance associated to a gene is overestimated by the dye bias effect in model (2) of Martin-Magniette et al. Dye-swaps constitute a simple and effective design to remove gene-specific dye bias when it is high. Nevertheless, we agree with Dobbin et al. (2005), that a balanced block design may be better than dye-swaps in some situations. As the former designs allow the use of more biological samples, the estimation of the biological variability will be more precise. Even if balanced block designs are statistically more efficient, the following considerations should be taken into account before choosing the experimental design:The experimental design must be adapted not only to the research question but also to the amount of biological material available. Finally, class prediction or differential expression, e.g. the question of interest, do not necessarily imply the same experimentaldesign. Even with rigorous experimental procedures some sources of variability remain (quality and yield of target purification, labelling efficiency, …). Performing dye-swaps will allow to differentiate biological from technical variability. It is often difficult to balance the dye for every treatment in complex designs, when samples are hardly available. For instance, such situations are encountered in sex-balanced medicalstudies. Moreover, some redundant experimental procedures (quality control of mRNA, preparation of targets for indirect dye-labelling) used in dye-swap experiments, decrease the financial cost to <2-fold the cost of a single slide hybridization, thus rendering this design much more attractive.