Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Comparative and Functional Genomics
Volume 2009, Article ID 201325, 8 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2009/201325
Research Article

Analysis of Array-CGH Data Using the R and Bioconductor Software Suite

Hannover Medical School, Institute of Cell and Molecular Pathology, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany

Received 2 December 2008; Revised 8 May 2009; Accepted 5 June 2009

Academic Editor: Eivind Hovig

Copyright © 2009 Winfried A. Hofmann et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. W. W. Lockwood, R. Chari, B. Chi, and W. L. Lam, “Recent advances in array comparative genomic hybridization technologies and their applications in human genetics,” European Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 139–148, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  2. R. C. Gentleman, V. J. Carey, D. M. Bates et al., “Bioconductor: open software development for computational biology and bioinformatics,” Genome Biology, vol. 5, no. 10, article R80, 2004. View at Google Scholar
  3. Bioconductor software, http://www.bioconductor.org/download.
  4. The R-project software, http://www.r-project.org.
  5. P. Neuvial, P. Hupé, I. Brito et al., “Spatial normalization of array-CGH data,” BMC Bioinformatics, vol. 7, article 264, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  6. P. H. C. Eilers and R. X. de Menezes, “Quantile smoothing of array CGH data,” Bioinformatics, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 1146–1153, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  7. L. I. Hsu, S. G. Self, D. Grove et al., “Denoising array-based comparative genomic hybridization data using wavelets,” Biostatistics, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 211–226, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  8. A. B. Olshen, E. S. Venkatraman, R. Lucito, and M. Wigler, “Circular binary segmentation for the analysis of array-based DNA copy number data,” Biostatistics, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 557–572, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  9. E. S. Venkatraman and A. B. Olshen, “A faster circular binary segmentation algorithm for the analysis of array CGH data,” Bioinformatics, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 657–663, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  10. M. A. van de Wie, K. I. Kim, S. J. Vosse, W. N. van Wieringen, S. M. Wilting, and B. Ylstra, “CGHcall: calling aberrations for array CGH tumor profiles,” Bioinformatics, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 892–894, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  11. P. Hupé, N. Stransky, J.-P. Thiery, F. Radvanyi, and E. Barillot, “Analysis of array CGH data: from signal ratio to gain and loss of DNA regions,” Bioinformatics, vol. 20, no. 18, pp. 3413–3422, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  12. F. Picard, S. Robin, M. Lavielle, C. Vaisse, and J.-J. Daudin, “A statistical approach for array CGH data analysis,” BMC Bioinformatics, vol. 6, article 27, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  13. W. Huber, J. Toedling, and L. M. Steinmetz, “Transcript mapping with high-density oligonucleotide tiling arrays,” Bioinformatics, vol. 22, no. 16, pp. 1963–1970, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  14. P. Wang, Y. Kim, J. Pollack, B. Narasimhan, and R. Tibshirani, “A method for calling gains and losses in array CGH data,” Biostatistics, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 45–58, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  15. J. Fridlyand, A. M. Snijders, D. Pinkel, D. G. Albertson, and A. N. Jain, “Hidden Markov models approach to the analysis of array CGH data,” Journal of Multivariate Analysis, vol. 90, no. 1, pp. 132–153, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  16. J. C. Marioni, N. P. Thorne, and S. Tavaré, “BioHMM: a heterogeneous hidden Markov model for segmenting array CGH data,” Bioinformatics, vol. 22, no. 9, pp. 1144–1146, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  17. A. J. Aguirre, C. Brennan, G. Bailey et al., “High-resolution characterization of the pancreatic adenocarcinoma genome,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 101, no. 24, pp. 9067–9072, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  18. W. R. Lai, M. D. Johnson, R. Kucherlapati, and P. J. Park, “Comparative analysis of algorithms for identifying amplifications and deletions in array CGH data,” Bioinformatics, vol. 21, no. 19, pp. 3763–3770, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  19. H. Willenbrock and J. Fridlyand, “A comparison study: applying segmentation to array CGH data for downstream analyses,” Bioinformatics, vol. 21, no. 22, pp. 4084–4091, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  20. S. J. Diskin, T. Eck, J. Greshock et al., “STAC: a method for testing the significance of DNA copy number aberrations across multiple array-CGH experiments,” Genome Research, vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 1149–1158, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  21. B. Zielinski, S. Gratias, G. Toedt et al., “Detection of chromosomal imbalances in retinoblastoma by matrix-based comparative genomic hybridization,” Genes Chromosomes and Cancer, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 294–301, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  22. Y. H. Yang, S. Dudoit, P. Luu et al., “Normalization for cDNA microarray data: a robust composite method addressing single and multiple slide systematic variation,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 30, no. 4, article e15, 2002. View at Google Scholar
  23. D. Steinemann, B. Skawran, T. Becker et al., “Assessment of differentiation and progression of hepatic tumors using array-based comparative genomic hybridization,” Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, vol. 4, no. 10, pp. 1283–1291, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  24. Human genome map, http://genome.ucsc.edu.
  25. L. Wilkens, H. Gerr, D. Gadzicki, H. Kreipe, and B. Schlegelberger, “Standardised fluorescence in situ hybridisation in cytological and histological specimens,” Virchows Archiv, vol. 447, no. 3, pp. 586–592, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar