2004
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-5-119
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Bayesian model accounting for within-class biological variability in Serial Analysis of Gene Expression (SAGE)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
30
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 55 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
(30 reference statements)
0
30
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In MPSS, signature-sampling fluctuations alone cannot account for the involved biochemical manipulations taking place in the process of signature library production. More elaborate Bayesian approaches represent the distribution of SAGE signature counts as mixtures of binomial (20) or Poisson (18) statistics whose parameters are weighted with prior distributions (chosen using heuristic criteria or mathematical convenience), yielding an enhanced variance when compared with plain Bernoulli or Poisson statistics. It is unlikely, however, that the basic process at play is a Bernoulli-type process, because there are many manipulations done to the signatures before they are counted that inherently contribute to its sample-to-sample count variability.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In MPSS, signature-sampling fluctuations alone cannot account for the involved biochemical manipulations taking place in the process of signature library production. More elaborate Bayesian approaches represent the distribution of SAGE signature counts as mixtures of binomial (20) or Poisson (18) statistics whose parameters are weighted with prior distributions (chosen using heuristic criteria or mathematical convenience), yielding an enhanced variance when compared with plain Bernoulli or Poisson statistics. It is unlikely, however, that the basic process at play is a Bernoulli-type process, because there are many manipulations done to the signatures before they are counted that inherently contribute to its sample-to-sample count variability.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To evaluate the statistical significance of the differences in counts, a web-based program, SAGEbetaBin (Vêncio et al , 2004), was employed. The paired raw-count data sets (Cd0 versus Cd3h, Cd1d, or Cd3d) were subjected to the SAGEbetaBin analysis, and up- and down-regulated tag species were detected with a Bayes error rate of 0.05.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In such cases, Poisson models are likely to produce high false positives. Some of the commonly used approaches such as, Bayesian methods (Baggerly et al, 2004;Vêncio et al, 2004), generalized linear models (Baggerly et al, 2003;Srivastava and Chen, 2010) including NB models (Anders and Huber, 2010;Smyth, 2007, 2008) assume that all gene counts are derived from an over-dispersed distribution, and fail to address the fact that some genes might have constant levels of transcription within treatment groups (Auer and Doerge, 2011;Oshlack et al, 2010). Accordingly, the assumptions on the variations of each gene's expression can mislead the detection of a truly DE gene.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%