Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Evaluating the performance of microarray segmentation algorithms.

Antti Lehmussola1, Pekka Ruusuvuori, Olli Yli-Harja

  • 1Institute of Signal Processing, Tampere University of Technology PO Box 553, 33101 Tampere, Finland. antti.lehmussola@tut.fi

Bioinformatics (Oxford, England)
|October 13, 2006
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

AI-assisted image analysis of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes as a prognostic marker in chemotherapy-naïve luminal breast cancer.

NPJ breast cancer·2026
Same author

Mapping the future of medicine through digital twins.

Frontiers in molecular medicine·2026
Same author

dMMR prediction from colorectal cancer histopathology: Leveraging non-tumor and low-magnification regions.

Computer methods and programs in biomedicine·2026
Same author

SparStVR - exploring sparse 3D histology data in virtual reality.

Communications engineering·2026
Same author

Staining normalization in histopathology: Method benchmarking using multicenter dataset.

Scientific reports·2026
Same author

Validation of a deep learning-based AI model for breast cancer risk stratification in postmenopausal ER+/HER2-breast cancer patients.

Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland)·2025
Same journal

3DICE: Interpretable 3D Cross-Modal Learning for Drug-Target Interaction Prediction and Large-Scale Drug Discovery.

Bioinformatics (Oxford, England)·2026
Same journal

KASSPer: Kinase Active Site Structure Prediction using Protein and Ligand Language Models and Its Application to Virtual Screening.

Bioinformatics (Oxford, England)·2026
Same journal

IDR searcher: a search engine solution for public image resources.

Bioinformatics (Oxford, England)·2026
Same journal

KCFtools: Rapid alignment-free method for introgression screening and GWAS using k-mer profiles.

Bioinformatics (Oxford, England)·2026
Same journal

Meta2DB: Curated shotgun metagenomic feature sets and metadata for health state prediction.

Bioinformatics (Oxford, England)·2026
Same journal

conMItion: an R package adjusting confounding factors for associations in multi-omics.

Bioinformatics (Oxford, England)·2026
See all related articles

This study compares nine microarray segmentation algorithms using simulated and real data. Algorithm choice significantly impacts gene expression analysis and results depend on image quality.

Area of Science:

  • Bioinformatics
  • Computational Biology
  • Image Analysis

Background:

  • Microarray segmentation is crucial for gene expression analysis.
  • Numerous algorithms exist, but few comprehensive comparisons have been performed.
  • Lack of ground-truth data complicates performance evaluation.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate and compare the performance of nine microarray segmentation algorithms.
  • To analyze algorithm performance using both simulated and real microarray data.
  • To understand how segmentation affects gene expression data analysis.

Main Methods:

  • Utilized simulated microarray experiments for pixel-level accuracy analysis.
  • Employed real microarray experiments for indirect performance measurement.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Identified significant differences and characteristics of segmentation algorithms.

    • Main Results:

    • Demonstrated clear performance differences among the nine algorithms.
    • Showed that segmentation performance is dependent on microarray image quality.
    • Highlighted how algorithm selection impacts the identification of differentially expressed genes.

    Conclusions:

    • The choice of microarray segmentation algorithm significantly influences gene expression analysis outcomes.
    • Algorithm performance varies and is sensitive to image quality.
    • This comparative study provides insights for selecting appropriate segmentation tools.