IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0145252.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Confounding Factors in the Transcriptome Analysis of an In-Vivo Exposure Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Oskar Bruning
  • Wendy Rodenburg
  • Paul F K Wackers
  • Conny van Oostrom
  • Martijs J Jonker
  • Rob J Dekker
  • Han Rauwerda
  • Wim A Ensink
  • Annemieke de Vries
  • Timo M Breit

Abstract

Confounding factors: In transcriptomics experimentation, confounding factors frequently exist alongside the intended experimental factors and can severely influence the outcome of a transcriptome analysis. Confounding factors are regularly discussed in methodological literature, but their actual, practical impact on the outcome and interpretation of transcriptomics experiments is, to our knowledge, not documented. For instance, in-vivo experimental factors; like Individual, Sample-Composition and Time-of-Day are potentially formidable confounding factors. To study these confounding factors, we designed an extensive in-vivo transcriptome experiment (n = 264) with UVR exposure of murine skin containing six consecutive samples from each individual mouse (n = 64). Analysis Approach: Evaluation of the confounding factors: Sample-Composition, Time-of-Day, Handling-Stress, and Individual-Mouse resulted in the identification of many genes that were affected by them. These genes sometimes showed over 30-fold expression differences. The most prominent confounding factor was Sample-Composition caused by mouse-dependent skin composition differences, sampling variation and/or influx/efflux of mobile cells. Although we can only evaluate these effects for known cell type specifically expressed genes in our complex heterogeneous samples, it is clear that the observed variations also affect the cumulative expression levels of many other non-cell-type-specific genes. ANOVA: ANOVA analysis can only attempt to neutralize the effects of the well-defined confounding factors, such as Individual-Mouse, on the experimental factors UV-Dose and Recovery-Time. Also, by definition, ANOVA only yields reproducible gene-expression differences, but we found that these differences were very small compared to the fold changes induced by the confounding factors, questioning the biological relevance of these ANOVA-detected differences. Furthermore, it turned out that many of the differentially expressed genes found by ANOVA were also present in the gene clusters associated with the confounding factors. Conclusion: Hence our overall conclusion is that confounding factors have a major impact on the outcome of in-vivo transcriptomics experiments. Thus the set-up, analysis, and interpretation of such experiments should be approached with the utmost prudence.

Suggested Citation

  • Oskar Bruning & Wendy Rodenburg & Paul F K Wackers & Conny van Oostrom & Martijs J Jonker & Rob J Dekker & Han Rauwerda & Wim A Ensink & Annemieke de Vries & Timo M Breit, 2016. "Confounding Factors in the Transcriptome Analysis of an In-Vivo Exposure Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-23, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0145252
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145252
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0145252
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0145252&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0145252?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. M. Kathleen Kerr, 2003. "Design Considerations for Efficient and Effective Microarray Studies," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 59(4), pages 822-828, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kerr Kathleen F., 2012. "Optimality Criteria for the Design of 2-Color Microarray Studies," Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-9, January.
    2. Landgrebe, Jobst & Bretz, Frank & Brunner, Edgar, 2006. "Efficient design and analysis of two colour factorial microarray experiments," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 499-517, January.
    3. Agnes Herzberg & Richard Jarrett, 2007. "A-Optimal Block Designs with Additional Singly Replicated Treatments," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(1), pages 61-70.
    4. Chao Chen & Kay Grennan & Judith Badner & Dandan Zhang & Elliot Gershon & Li Jin & Chunyu Liu, 2011. "Removing Batch Effects in Analysis of Expression Microarray Data: An Evaluation of Six Batch Adjustment Methods," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(2), pages 1-10, February.
    5. Zhang Runchu & Mukerjee Rahul, 2013. "Highly efficient factorial designs for cDNA microarray experiments: use of approximate theory together with a step-up step-down procedure," Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, De Gruyter, vol. 12(4), pages 489-503, August.
    6. R. A. Bailey, 2007. "Designs for two‐colour microarray experiments," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 56(4), pages 365-394, August.
    7. Frédéric Reynier & Fabien Petit & Malick Paye & Fanny Turrel-Davin & Pierre-Emmanuel Imbert & Arnaud Hot & Bruno Mougin & Pierre Miossec, 2011. "Importance of Correlation between Gene Expression Levels: Application to the Type I Interferon Signature in Rheumatoid Arthritis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(10), pages 1-8, October.
    8. Richard G. Jarrett & Katya Ruggiero, 2008. "Design and Analysis of Two-Phase Experiments for Gene Expression Microarrays—Part I," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 64(1), pages 208-216, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0145252. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.