Batch effects are the systematic non-biological differences between batches (groups) of samples in microarray experiments due to various causes such as differences in sample preparation and hybridization protocols. Previous work focused mainly on the development of methods for effective batch effects removal. However, their impact on cross-batch prediction performance, which is one of the most important goals in microarray-based applications, has not been addressed. This paper uses a broad selection of data sets from the Microarray Quality Control Phase II (MAQC-II) effort, generated on three microarray platforms with different causes of batch effects to assess the efficacy of their removal. Two data sets from cross-tissue and cross-platform experiments are also included. Of the 120 cases studied using Support vector machines (SVM) and K nearest neighbors (KNN) as classifiers and Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) as performance metric, we find that Ratio-G, Ratio-A, EJLR, mean-centering and standardization methods perform better or equivalent to no batch effect removal in 89, 85, 83, 79 and 75% of the cases, respectively, suggesting that the application of these methods is generally advisable and ratio-based methods are preferred.

Microarray-based classifiers and associated signature genes generated from various platforms are abundantly reported in the literature; however, the utility of the classifiers and signature genes in cross-platform prediction applications remains largely uncertain. As part of the MicroArray Quality Control Phase II (MAQC-II) project, we show in this study 80–90% cross-platform prediction consistency using a large toxicogenomics data set by illustrating that: (1) the signature genes of a classifier generated from one platform can be directly applied to another platform to develop a predictive classifier; (2) a classifier developed using data generated from one platform can accurately predict samples that were profiled using a different platform. The results suggest the potential utility of using published signature genes in cross-platform applications and the possible adoption of the published classifiers for a variety of applications. The study reveals an opportunity for possible translation of biomarkers identified using microarrays to clinically validated non-array gene expression assays.

Genomic biomarkers for the detection of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) from blood are urgently needed for monitoring drug safety. We used a unique data set as part of the Food and Drug Administration led MicroArray Quality Control Phase-II (MAQC-II) project consisting of gene expression data from the two tissues (blood and liver) to test cross-tissue predictability of genomic indicators to a form of chemically-induced liver injury. We then use the genomic indicators from the blood as biomarkers for prediction of acetaminophen-induced liver injury and show that the cross tissue predictability of a response to the pharmaceutical agent (accuracy as high as 92.1%) is better than, or at least comparable to, that of non-therapeutic compounds. We provide a database of gene expression for the highly informative predictors which brings biological context to the possible mechanisms involved in DILI. Pathway-based predictors were associated with inflammation, angiogenesis, Toll-like receptor signaling, apoptosis and mitochondrial damage. The results demonstrate for the first time and support the hypothesis that genomic indicators in the blood can serve as potential diagnostic biomarkers predictive of DILI.

The discordance in results of independent genome-wide association studies (GWAS) indicates the potential for Type I and Type II errors. We assessed the repeatibility of current Affymetrix technologies that support GWAS. Reasonable reproducibility was observed for both raw intensity and the genotypes/copy number variants. We also assessed consistencies between different SNP arrays and between genotype calling algorithms. We observed that the inconsistency in genotypes was generally small at the specimen level. To further examine whether the differences from genotyping and genotype calling are possible sources of variation in GWAS results, an association analysis was applied to compare the associated SNPs. We observed that the inconsistency in genotypes not only propagated to the association analysis, but was amplified in the associated SNPs. Our studies show that inconsistencies between SNP arrays and between genotype calling algorithms are potential sources for the lack of reproducibility in GWAS results.