About between-array normalization in limma
2
0
Entering edit mode
De-Jian ZHAO ▴ 240
@de-jian-zhao-2012
Last seen 9.6 years ago
Hi,everyone. I am now analyzing my microarray data using limma. I am not sure when to use between-array normalization. In the first case of chapter 11 in limma user's guide, it is mentioned that between-array normalization is not routine and should only be done when there is good evidence. I wonder what is a good evidence and whether I should carry out between-array normalization in my data. See the attachment for the boxplot. In the attached boxplot,the blue, red, and green ones stand for three different hybridization groups. There are 6 replications in each group. I want to carry out between-array normalization in the three groups respectively and then combine them together to fit a linear model. Is this reasonable? In my opinion, we can always carry out between-array normalization between the replications of the same hybridization group (unless there is dye swap). Thanks in advance for your reply. Dejian Zhao
Microarray Normalization limma Microarray Normalization limma • 1.3k views
ADD COMMENT
0
Entering edit mode
@sean-davis-490
Last seen 12 weeks ago
United States
De-Jian,ZHAO wrote: > Hi,everyone. > > I am now analyzing my microarray data using limma. I am not sure > when to use between-array normalization. > > In the first case of chapter 11 in limma user's guide, it is > mentioned that between-array normalization is not routine and should > only be done when there is good evidence. I wonder what is a good > evidence and whether I should carry out between-array normalization > in my data. See the attachment for the boxplot. > > In the attached boxplot,the blue, red, and green ones stand for > three different hybridization groups. There are 6 replications in > each group. I want to carry out between-array normalization in > the three groups respectively and then combine them together to fit > a linear model. Is this reasonable? In my opinion, we can always > carry out between-array normalization between the replications of > the same hybridization group (unless there is dye swap). The rule-of-thumb is that if you are working with two-color data and using ratios only, then you probably do not need between-array normalization. If you want to do single-channel analyses of two-color data or are using single-channel data (affy, etc.), then you need to use between-array normalization. The other rule-of-thumb with normalization is to do the least reasonable amount possible. So, despite the fact that one _can_ do between-array normalization, one should not do it unless there is a good evidence that it is important, after looking at within-array normalization results. Sean
ADD COMMENT
0
Entering edit mode
Simon Lin ▴ 270
@simon-lin-1272
Last seen 9.6 years ago
Sean Davis Wrote: >The rule-of-thumb is that if you are working with two-color data and >using ratios only, then you probably do not need between-array >normalization. What is the rationale behind this claim? Is it because the common ref channel serves as kind of internal calibration control already? Seems that the current recommendation of normalization is on the less agreesive side? -Simon
ADD COMMENT
0
Entering edit mode
Dear Simon, On Wednesday 24 October 2007 02:32, Simon Lin wrote: > Sean Davis Wrote: > >The rule-of-thumb is that if you are working with two-color data and > >using ratios only, then you probably do not need between-array > >normalization. > > What is the rationale behind this claim? Is it because the common ref > channel serves as kind of internal calibration control already? > I think (at least part of) the argument had to do with the variance- bias trade-off. And I think the NAR paper by Dudoit et al. on normalization had some comments regarding these issues (though that paper is a few years old by now). I think I also remember seening a pdf of a talk by K. Kerr and colleagues where these issues might have been addressed (though I am not sure). Anyway, I'm also interested in knowing if there are stronger arguments and more recent studies. Best, R. > Seems that the current recommendation of normalization is on the less > agreesive side? > > -Simon > > _______________________________________________ > Bioconductor mailing list > Bioconductor at stat.math.ethz.ch > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioconductor > Search the archives: > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.biology.informatics.conductor -- Ram?n D?az-Uriarte Statistical Computing Team Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Oncol?gicas (CNIO) (Spanish National Cancer Center) Melchor Fern?ndez Almagro, 3 28029 Madrid (Spain) Fax: +-34-91-224-6972 Phone: +-34-91-224-6900 http://ligarto.org/rdiaz PGP KeyID: 0xE89B3462 (http://ligarto.org/rdiaz/0xE89B3462.asc) **NOTA DE CONFIDENCIALIDAD** Este correo electr?nico, y ...{{dropped:3}}
ADD REPLY

Login before adding your answer.

Traffic: 808 users visited in the last hour
Help About
FAQ
Access RSS
API
Stats

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Powered by the version 2.3.6