Table 1 |
|||||
|
Summary of comparing the duplicate tumour samples as a repeated dataset (A and B) to assess the reproducibility of gene-lists. |
|||||
|
A |
B |
A & B overlap |
consensus (%) |
||
|
|
|||||
|
Limma |
QN |
192 |
30 |
23 |
11.6 |
|
MC |
225 |
222 |
59 |
15.2 |
|
|
CB |
260 |
211 |
188 |
66.4 |
|
|
|
|||||
|
SAM |
QN |
214 |
40 |
30 |
13.4 |
|
MC |
240 |
238 |
65 |
15.7 |
|
|
CB |
265 |
218 |
193 |
66.6 |
|
|
|
|||||
|
Limma + UHRR |
QN |
205 |
31 |
24 |
11.3 |
|
MC |
8 |
92 |
7 |
7.5 |
|
|
CB |
144 |
119 |
112 |
74.2 |
|
|
|
|||||
|
SAM + UHRR |
QN |
224 |
42 |
32 |
13.7 |
|
MC |
17 |
100 |
12 |
11.4 |
|
|
CB |
149 |
125 |
117 |
74.5 |
|
|
|
|||||
|
Differentially expressed genes were identified using Limma and SAM as described in the text with quantile-normalisation (QN), mean-centring (MC), and ComBat (CB). The UHRR was used as an inter-batch calibrator. |
|||||
|
Kitchen et al. BMC Genomics 2010 11:134 doi:10.1186/1471-2164-11-134 |
|||||