Next station in microarray data analysis: GEPAS.

David Montaner; Joaquín Tárraga; Jaime Huerta-Cepas; Jordi Burguet; Juan M Vaquerizas; Lucía Conde; Pablo Minguez; Javier Vera; Sach Mukherjee; Joan Valls; Miguel A G Pujana; Eva Alloza; Javier Herrero; Fátima Al-Shahrour; Joaquín Dopazo

doi:10.1093/nar/gkl197

PubMed · 16845056

Next station in microarray data analysis: GEPAS.

David Montaner·Joaquín Tárraga·Jaime Huerta-Cepas·Jordi Burguet·Juan M Vaquerizas·Lucía Conde·Pablo Minguez·Javier Vera·Sach Mukherjee·Joan Valls·Miguel A G Pujana·Eva Alloza·Javier Herrero·Fátima Al-Shahrour·Joaquín Dopazo

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The Gene Expression Profile Analysis Suite (GEPAS) has been running for more than four years. During this time it has evolved to keep pace with the new interests and trends in the still changing world of microarray data analysis. GEPAS has been designed to provide an intuitive although powerful web-based interface that offers diverse analysis options from the early step of preprocessing (normalization of Affymetrix and two-colour microarray experiments and other preprocessing options), to the final step of the functional annotation of the experiment (using Gene Ontology, pathways, PubMed abstracts etc.), and include different possibilities for clustering, gene selection, class prediction and array-comparative genomic hybridization management. GEPAS is extensively used by researchers of many countries and its records indicate an average usage rate of 400 experiments per day. The web-based pipeline for microarray gene expression data, GEPAS, is available at http://www.gepas.org.

Explore related subjects

Cluster Analysis Gene Expression Profiling Internet Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis Polymorphism, Genetic Software User-Computer Interface Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

David Montaner, Joaquín Tárraga, Jaime Huerta-Cepas, Jordi Burguet, Juan M Vaquerizas, Lucía Conde, Pablo Minguez, Javier Vera, Sach Mukherjee, Joan Valls, Miguel A G Pujana, Eva Alloza, Javier Herrero, Fátima Al-Shahrour, Joaquín Dopazo. 2006-07-01. Next station in microarray data analysis: GEPAS.. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar%2Fgkl197

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2025

Clustering individuals using INMTD: a novel versatile multi-view embedding framework integrating omics and imaging data.

MOTIVATION: Combining omics and images can lead to a more comprehensive clustering of individuals than classic single-view approaches. Among the various approaches for multi-view clustering, nonnegative matrix tri-factorization (NMTF) and nonnegative Tucker decomposition (NTD) are advantageous in learning low-rank embeddings with promising interpretability. Besides, there is a need to handle unwanted drivers of clusterings (i.e. confounders). RESULTS: In this work, we introduce a novel multi-view clustering method based on NMTF and NTD, named INMTD, which integrates omics and 3D imaging data to derive unconfounded subgroups of individuals. According to the adjusted Rand index, INMTD outperformed other clustering methods on a synthetic dataset with known clusters. In the application to real-life facial-genomic data, INMTD generated biologically relevant embeddings for individuals, genetics, and facial morphology. By removing confounded embedding vectors, we derived an unconfounded clustering with better internal and external quality; the genetic and facial annotations of each derived subgroup highlighted distinctive characteristics. In conclusion, INMTD can effectively integrate omics data and 3D images for unconfounded clustering with biologically meaningful interpretation. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: INMTD is freely available at https://github.com/ZuqiLi/INMTD.

Cluster Analysis↗

PubMed2007

A spatial scan statistic for ordinal data.

Spatial scan statistics are widely used for count data to detect geographical disease clusters of high or low incidence, mortality or prevalence and to evaluate their statistical significance. Some data are ordinal or continuous in nature, however, so that it is necessary to dichotomize the data to use a traditional scan statistic for count data. There is then a loss of information and the choice of cut-off point is often arbitrary. In this paper, we propose a spatial scan statistic for ordinal data, which allows us to analyse such data incorporating the ordinal structure without making any further assumptions. The test statistic is based on a likelihood ratio test and evaluated using Monte Carlo hypothesis testing. The proposed method is illustrated using prostate cancer grade and stage data from the Maryland Cancer Registry. The statistical power, sensitivity and positive predicted value of the test are examined through a simulation study.

Cluster Analysis↗

PubMed2007

Analysis of cluster randomized cross-over trial data: a comparison of methods.

In a cluster randomized cross-over trial, all participating clusters receive both intervention and control treatments consecutively, in separate time periods. Patients recruited by each cluster within the same time period receive the same intervention, and randomization determines order of treatment within a cluster. Such a design has been used on a number of occasions. For analysis of the trial data, the approach of analysing cluster-level summary measures is appealing on the grounds of simplicity, while hierarchical modelling allows for the correlation of patients within periods within clusters and offers flexibility in the model assumptions. We consider several cluster-level approaches and hierarchical models and make comparison in terms of empirical precision, coverage, and practical considerations. The motivation for a cluster randomized trial to employ cross-over of trial arms is particularly strong when the number of clusters available is small, so we examine performance of the methods under small, medium and large (6, 18, 30) numbers of clusters. One hierarchical model and two cluster-level methods were found to perform consistently well across the designs considered. These three methods are efficient, provide appropriate standard errors and coverage, and continue to perform well when incorporating adjustment for an individual-level covariate. We conclude that choice between hierarchical models and cluster-level methods should be influenced by the extent of complexity in the planned analysis.

Cluster Analysis↗