Multi-platform assessment of transcriptional profiling technologies utilizing a precise probe mapping methodology

Abstract

BackgroundThe arrival of RNA-seq as a high-throughput method competitive to the established microarray technologies has necessarily driven a need for comparative evaluation. To date, cross-platform comparisons of these technologies have been relatively few in number of platforms analyzed and were typically gene name annotation oriented. Here, we present a more extensive and yet precise assessment to elucidate differences and similarities in performance of numerous aspects including dynamic range, fidelity of raw signal and fold-change with sample titration, and concordance with qRT-PCR (TaqMan). To ensure that these results were not confounded by incompatible comparisons, we introduce the concept of probe mapping directed “transcript pattern”. A transcript pattern identifies probe(set)s across platforms that target a common set of transcripts for a specific gene. Thus, three levels of data were examined: entire data sets, data derived from a subset of 15,442 RefSeq genes common across platforms, and data derived from the transcript pattern defined subset of 7,034 RefSeq genes.ResultsIn general, there were substantial core similarities between all 6 platforms evaluated; but, to varying degrees, the two RNA-seq protocols outperformed three of the four microarray platforms in most categories. Notably, a fourth microarray platform, Agilent with a modified protocol, was comparable, or marginally superior, to the RNA-seq protocols within these same assessments, especially in regards to fold-change evaluation. Furthermore, these 3 platforms (Agilent and two RNA-seq methods) demonstrated over 80 % fold-change concordance with the gold standard qRT-PCR (TaqMan).ConclusionsThis study suggests that microarrays can perform on nearly equal footing with RNA-seq, in certain key features, specifically when the dynamic range is comparable. Furthermore, the concept of a transcript pattern has been introduced that may minimize potential confounding factors of multi-platform comparison and may be useful for similar evaluations.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12864-015-1913-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A Cross-Comparison of High-Throughput Platforms for Circulating MicroRNA Quantification, Agreement in Risk Classification, and Biomarker Discovery in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

“…We then assessed the pairwise concordance of fold changes (FC) between platforms (platform X vs. platform Y). Four qualitative evaluations were assigned to each comparison: compressed, opposite, overestimate, or concordant ( 28 ). When the compared FC were in the same direction but the ratio of X/Y was greater than or equal to 2, a value of “compressed” was assigned.…”

Combination of gene set signatures correlates with response to nivolumab in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer

“…Normalization of gene expression was performed using the Single Space Transformation Robust Multi-Average (SST-RNA) method available in Expression Console v1.41. Normalized expression was quality-checked following recommendations for microarray processing 29 and subsequently input for single-sample Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (ssGSEA) 30 . In summary, ssGSEA converts the raw expression values of a single sample into ranks based on expression value, and, for each gene set (signature) in a collection of signatures, outputs a score reflecting the relationship between the constituent genes of the signature and their ranks among all the genes in a sample.…”

Whole transcriptome profiling reveals major cell types in the cellular immune response against acute and chronic active Epstein-Barr virus infection

“…This FDR-based adjusted p-value at 0.05 was considered to represent a significant difference. Due to potential fold-change compression issues with this type of HTA2.0 array 39 , we chose 1.5-fold as the cutoff for downstream interpretation. The transcriptome expression data from the present study have been deposited into the NCBI public database (GEO number: GSE85599).…”