↓ Skip to main content

Normalization of array-CGH data: influence of copy number imbalances

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, October 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
citeulike
5 CiteULike
connotea
2 Connotea
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Normalization of array-CGH data: influence of copy number imbalances
Published in
BMC Genomics, October 2007
DOI 10.1186/1471-2164-8-382
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johan Staaf, Göran Jönsson, Markus Ringnér, Johan Vallon-Christersson

Abstract

High-resolution microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) techniques have successfully been applied to study copy number imbalances in a number of settings such as the analysis of cancer genomes. For normalization of array-CGH data, methods initially developed for gene expression microarray analysis have, in general, been directly adopted and used. However, these methods are designed to work under assumptions that may not be valid for array-CGH data when copy number imbalances are present. We therefore sought to investigate the effect on normalization imposed by copy number imbalances. Here we demonstrate that copy number imbalances correlate with intensity in array-CGH data thereby causing problems for conventional normalization methods. We propose a strategy to circumvent these problems by taking copy number imbalances into account during normalization, and we test the proposed strategy using several data sets from the analysis of cancer genomes. In addition, we show how the strategy can be applied to conveniently define adaptive sample-specific boundaries between balanced copy number, losses, and gains to facilitate management of variation in tissue heterogeneity when calling copy number changes. We highlight the importance of considering copy number imbalances during normalization of array-CGH data, and show how failure to do so can deleteriously affect data and hamper interpretation.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
France 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Finland 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 60 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 37%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 25%
Other 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 5 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 26 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 19%
Computer Science 8 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 9%
Mathematics 4 6%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 6 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 August 2015.
All research outputs
#14,600,553
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#4,932
of 11,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,604
of 88,672 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#29
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,244 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 88,672 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.