2010
DOI: 10.1186/1756-0500-3-81
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Analysing time course microarray data using Bioconductor: a case study using yeast2 Affymetrix arrays

Abstract: BackgroundLarge scale microarray experiments are becoming increasingly routine, particularly those which track a number of different cell lines through time. This time-course information provides valuable insight into the dynamic mechanisms underlying the biological processes being observed. However, proper statistical analysis of time-course data requires the use of more sophisticated tools and complex statistical models.FindingsUsing the open source CRAN and Bioconductor repositories for R, we provide exampl… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A surprising finding of this former study was that all miRNA expression changes occurred with a delay only after 24 h. To find an explanation for this result and to identify dynamic regulatory networks, we performed a series of mRNA microarrays using the same RNA extracts. In addition to the identification of significantly regulated miRNAs and mRNAs over time, this approach allows for building and testing contrasts using the same linear model (45). Based on our benchmarking results of three methods (‘betr’, ‘timecourse’ and ‘limma’), ‘limma’ proved to be superior in terms of FDR for permutated data sets and synthetic data.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A surprising finding of this former study was that all miRNA expression changes occurred with a delay only after 24 h. To find an explanation for this result and to identify dynamic regulatory networks, we performed a series of mRNA microarrays using the same RNA extracts. In addition to the identification of significantly regulated miRNAs and mRNAs over time, this approach allows for building and testing contrasts using the same linear model (45). Based on our benchmarking results of three methods (‘betr’, ‘timecourse’ and ‘limma’), ‘limma’ proved to be superior in terms of FDR for permutated data sets and synthetic data.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Different methods [‘betr’ (43), ‘timecourse’ (44) and ‘limma’ (33)] to identify significantly differentially expressed (SDE) miRNAs and mRNAs were tested (Supplementary Data and Supplementary Table S2). In this study, linear models and the empirical Bayes method from the ‘limma’ package of R/Bioconductor were used for differential analysis of the miRNA and mRNA time-series data sets as described before (45). In addition, to obtain a list of features significantly regulated at each time point, we used the same ‘limma’ model and a set of contrasts, comparing expression in IFN-γ–treated samples versus untreated controls.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Microarray data were analyzed using R/Bioconductor (37), the '.CEL' data files imported using the affy package (1.52.0) (38). Scripts from Gillespie et al (39) were used to mask the S. pombe probes, to extract the data for the S. cerevisiae probes. The intensity values from the S. cerevisiae probes were normalized using the Robust Multi-array Average (RMA) (40) function from the affy package.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Microarray data were processed using the MAS 5.0 algorithm implemented in the Bioconductor R package (Gentleman et al 2004) after removing data from probes for Schizosaccharomyces pombe transcripts using published methods (Gillespie et al 2010). Differentially expressed genes were identified using the limma R package (Smyth 2005), using a Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value threshold of 0.05 and fold-change threshold of 1.7 (up or down), as previously described (Van Wageningen et al 2010;Lenstra et al 2011).…”
Section: Microarray Data and Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%