Arthur Sackler Colloquia Sign up for PNAS Online eTocs
Link: Info for AuthorsLink: SubscribeLink: AboutLink: Editorial BoardLink: ContactLink: Site Map Link: PNAS Home
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Link: Current Issue "" Link: Archives "" Link: Online Submission ""  Link: Advanced Search

Institution: NIH Library Sign In as Member / Individual


This Article
Full Text
Services
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Request Copyright Permission
Table 2

Table 3. Number of probe sets showing signal intensity differences between human and chimpanzee tissues in the oligonucleotide arrays by using several analysis methods

 

Cortex (this work)

Cortex (ref. 1)

Heart (this work)

Liver (ref. 1)

Analysis method

Total

Up

Down

Total

Up

Down

Total

Up

Down

Total

Up

Down

Overall*

246 (232)

193 (188)

53 (44)

311

279

32

841

455

386

521

287

234

MAS + BULLFROG

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- 10%-60% normalization

230 (217)

180 (174)

50 (43)

210

185

25

816

445

371

340

202

138

- 2%-2% normalization

250 (245)

200 (199)

50 (46)

228

198

30

899

424

475

369

232

137

DCHIP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- Average difference

89 (82)

76 (72)

13 (10)

197

185

12

204

138

66

400

212

188

- PM/MM model

98 (83)

82 (75)

16 (8)

45

41

4

154

90

64

81

49

32

- PM-only model

95 (82)

83 (77)

12 (5)

46

43

3

153

92

61

73

44

29

TERAGENOMICS

193 (170)

127 (113)

66 (57)

176

126

50

809

444

365

338

167

171

Several normalization and analysis methods were used to identify the probe sets showing signal intensity differences in the oligonucleotide arrays in four different comparisons of human and chimpanzee tissues: cerebral cortex (this work and analysis of data from ref. 1), heart (this work), and liver (analysis of data from ref. 1). Array data were analyzed with three programs: MICROARRAY SUITE (MAS), Ver. 4.0 (Affymetrix); BULLFROG, Ver. 4.5 (2); DCHIP, Ver. 1.0 and 1.1 (3); and TERAGENOMICS (Information Management Consultants, www.teragenomics.com). In the MAS and BULLFROG analyses, the arrays were normalized to the same average intensity on the basis of all probe sets excluding the 10% with the highest and the 60% with the lowest hybridization signals (10–60% normalization) or excluding the 2% with the highest and the 2% with the lowest hybridization signals (2–2% normalization). In the DCHIP analysis, all arrays were normalized to the same overall intensity on the basis of the invariant set of probes. Three different ways to calculate the gene expression values were used (3): average difference, Perfect Match/Mismatch (PM/MM) difference model, and Perfect Match (PM) only model. The total number of probe sets showing signal differences between humans and chimpanzees obtained with each analysis method is indicated in the table, together with those with higher intensities in humans than in chimpanzees (Up) and with lower intensities in humans than in chimpanzees (Down). In all cases, a clear skewing toward higher hybridization levels in humans than in chimpanzees for the majority of genes with signal differences was observed in the cortex, but not in heart or liver.

*Includes the combination of the probe sets identified with the MAS + BULLFROG 10–60% normalization analysis and the DCHIP average difference analysis: cerebral cortex (this work), 157 exclusive to MAS + BULLFROG, 16 exclusive to DCHIP, and 73 in common to both; cerebral cortex (1), 114 exclusive to MAS + BULLFROG, 101 exclusive to DCHIP, and 96 in common to both; heart (this work), 637 exclusive to MAS + BULLFROG, 25 exclusive to DCHIP, and 179 in common to both; liver (1), 121 exclusive to MAS + BULLFROG, 181 exclusive to DCHIP, and 219 in common to both.

†In this analysis of the cerebral cortex data, the results when the chimpanzee infant (Pt2) is excluded from the analysis are shown in parentheses and are very similar to those obtained with the complete set.

1. Enard, W., Khaitovich, P., Klose, J., Zollner, S., Heissig, F., Giavalisco, P., Nieselt-Struwe, K., Muchmore, E., Varki, A., Ravid, R., et al. (2002) Science 296, 340–343.

2. Zapala, M. A., Lockhart, D. J., Pankratz, D. G., Garcia, A. J., Barlow, C. & Lockhart, D. J. (2002) Genome Biol. 3, SOFTWARE0001-0009.

3. Li, C. & Wong, W. H. (2001) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98, 31–36.