[BioC] P calls
s.henderson at ucl.ac.uk
Tue Mar 18 11:17:05 MET 2003
I agree. I was really trying to elicit advice on an alternative. The funny
thing about the MM probes is that if they just removed them Affy could
produce a single chip with U133A and B genes, and we could all use a PM only
algorithm. BUT then they wouldn't get double the money off some labs.
For practical purposes however I still need to filter some data-- for
computer intensive clustering or learning. So as I said to R. Irizarry
below, I'm not sure whether to try and do this looking at the probe-set
level or at the expression summary level.
If not a test of difference from the mean of the specific MM (robust or
whatever), why not a test of difference from all local MM values in that
sector, or a lower quantile thereof?
From: Rafael A. Irizarry [mailto:ririzarr at jhsph.edu]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 3:30 PM
To: Stephen Henderson
Cc: Ben Rubinstein
Subject: RE: [BioC] P calls
i agree that the notion of P and A might make sense. as you suggest, i
wouldnt trust affy's way of doing this. i know of one other attempt at
getting to this. im cc-ing ben rubinstein who has been working on this
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Stephen
> I think that's probably true that vsn and dchip better assign meaningful
> values to data that is essentially instrument noise. I'm still left
> wondering how best to choose a filter that excludes such data. Whilst for
> modeling purposes it maybe nice to keep the noise as it is information, I
> think for many computer intensive tasks it is practically best to remove.
> I wonder whether the notion of P and A calls is OK but not best
> under MAS5? Surely it is better to exclude data based upon the probe level
> data rather than the summary value? No?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rafael A. Irizarry [mailto:ririzarr at jhsph.edu]
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 2:34 PM
> To: Stephen Henderson
> Cc: bioconductor at stat.math.ethz.ch
> Subject: Re: [BioC] P calls
> in my opinionm the main reason affy uses these is because MAS 5.0 has so
> much noise at "the bottom". if they didnt, all their large fold changes
> would be for genes with low expression. with RMA, what i use, you dont
> have this problem so i dont see the need to throw away information. there
> are other ways to get rid of the "noise" at the bottom: dChip (pm-only)
> and vsn are two exaples.
> There is no designated place to stick them into exprSet. you could create
> another exprSet just for these or since MAS doesnt give SEs,
> you could stick them in the se.exprs slot. a better (but you need to code
> some) solution is to extend the exprSet class to a new class that includes
> a slot for these calls.
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Stephen Henderson wrote:
> > I'd like to use the Present (P) and Absent (A) calls for some
> > filtering of data prior to analysis. Is there an appropriate slot for
> > inserting P and A calls within the exprSet object?
> > I'd like to garner opinions: Does anyone else use these , think them
> > worthwhile, or perhaps use some other surrogate?
From: w.huber at dkfz-heidelberg.de [mailto:w.huber at dkfz-heidelberg.de]
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:28 AM
To: Reinhold Koch
Subject: Re: [BioC] P calls
> In my opinion an "absent" call just means high values of the MM probes
> compared to their corresponding PM probes; other than that I could not
> detect any difference between genes called "absent" or "present".
And in many cases that could just mean that the "MM" is in a fact a
perfect match for something else (esp. in complex transcriptomes such as
human). The findings in the paper below seem to confirm that notion.
Irizarry, RA, Hobbs, B, Collin, F, Beazer-Barclay, YD, Antonellis, KJ,
Scherf, U, Speed, TP (2002) Exploration, Normalization, and Summaries of
High Density Oligonucleotide Array Probe Level Data. Accepted for
publication in Biostatistics.
Bioconductor mailing list
Bioconductor at stat.math.ethz.ch
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential an... [[dropped]]
More information about the Bioconductor