PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 7782082

Efficient pooling designs for library screening.

Abstract

We describe efficient methods for screening clone libraries, based on pooling schemes that we call "random k-sets designs." In these designs, the pools in which any clone occurs are equally likely to be any possible selection of k from the v pools. The values of k and v can be chosen to optimize desirable properties. Random k-sets designs have substantial advantages over alternative pooling schemes: they are efficient, flexible, and easy to specify, require fewer pools, and have error-correcting and error-detecting capabilities. In addition, screening can often be achieved in only one pass, thus facilitating automation. For design comparison, we assume a binomial distribution for the number of "positive" clones, with parameters n, the number of clones, and c, the coverage. We propose the expected number of resolved positive clones--clones that are definitely positive based upon the pool assays--as a criterion for the efficiency of a pooling design. We determine the value of k that is optimal, with respect to this criterion, as a function of v, n, and c. We also describe superior k-sets designs called k-sets packing designs. As an illustration, we discuss a robotically implemented design for a 2.5-fold-coverage, human chromosome 16 YAC library of n = 1298 clones. We also estimate the probability that each clone is positive, given the pool-assay data and a model for experimental errors.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

W J Bruno, E Knill, D J Balding, D C Bruce, N A Doggett, W W Sawhill, R L Stallings, C C Whittaker, D C Torney. 1995-03-01. Efficient pooling designs for library screening.. https://doi.org/10.1016/0888-7543(95)80078-z

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

On the sample size for one-sided equivalence of sensitivities based upon McNemar's test.

In this paper we formalize the problem of testing the one-sided equivalence in the sensitivities of two medical diagnostic tests under a matched-pair study design. We derive conditional and unconditional sample size formulae which are decreasing functions of the probability of being diagnosed by both tests. We calculate upper boundary and midpoint sample sizes. Results of a Monte Carlo simulation study that compares the proposed sample size formulae with that of Lachenbruch suggest that our midpoint conditional sample size is the best choice to obtain the desired power for the type of equivalence studies discussed in the paper.

Binomial Distribution

Comparison of tests and sample size formulae for proving therapeutic equivalence based on the difference of binomial probabilities.

To prove the hypothesis that a new treatment is as effective as a standard one, a possibility is to test the one-sided null hypothesis of a clear inferiority of the new treatment against the alternative hypothesis that, if at all, it is only negligibly inferior. Such a problem is of clinical relevance if, for instance, a new treatment with an effectiveness which is comparable to that of the standard one would be preferred if it is less toxic. If the difference between the two treatments is measured by the difference of failure rates, approximate statistical tests and sample size formulae have to be used. This paper reports the results of an extensive empirical investigation comparing the well known calculations proposed by Blackwelder, Rodary, ComNougue and Tournade, which propose a sample size formula for the test of Dunnett and Gent, and Farrington and Manning. The investigation was conducted in order to allow more comprehensive conclusions than those which may be drawn from the limited examples given by the last authors. For the usual settings in clinical trials, the formulae of Farrington and Manning are recommended. However, there are combinations of statistical parameters for which they are not preferred.

Binomial Distribution