The TWW Growth Model and Its Application in the Analysis of Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction.

IF 2.3 Q3 BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS
Bioinformatics and Biology Insights Pub Date : 2024-11-20 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/11779322241290126
M Tabatabai, D Wilus, K P Singh, T L Wallace
{"title":"The TWW Growth Model and Its Application in the Analysis of Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction.","authors":"M Tabatabai, D Wilus, K P Singh, T L Wallace","doi":"10.1177/11779322241290126","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It is necessary to accurately capture the growth trajectory of fluorescence where the best fit, precision, and relative efficiency are essential. Having this in mind, a new family of growth functions called TWW (Tabatabai, Wilus, Wallace) was introduced. This model is capable of accurately analyzing quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). This new family provides a reproducible quantitation of gene copies and is less labor-intensive than current quantitative methods. A new cycle threshold based on TWW that does not need the assumption of equal reaction efficiency was introduced. The performance of TWW was compared with 3 classical models (Gompertz, logistic, and Richard) using qPCR data. TWW models the relationship between the cycle number and fluorescence intensity, outperforming some state-of-the-art models in performance measures. The 3-parameter TWW model had the best model fit in 68.57% of all cases, followed by the Richard model (28.57%) and the logistic (2.86%). Gompertz had the worst fit in 88.57% of all cases. It had the best precision in 85.71% of all cases followed by Richard (14.29%). For all cases, Gompertz had the worst precision. TWW had the best relative efficiency in 54.29% of all cases, while the logistic model was best in 17.14% of all cases. Richard and Gompertz tied for the best relative efficiency in 14.29% of all cases. The results indicate that TWW is a good competitor when considering model fit, precision, and efficiency. The 3-parameter TWW model has fewer parameters when compared to the Richard model in analyzing qPCR data, which makes it less challenging to reach convergence.</p>","PeriodicalId":9065,"journal":{"name":"Bioinformatics and Biology Insights","volume":"18 ","pages":"11779322241290126"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11577475/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioinformatics and Biology Insights","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11779322241290126","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It is necessary to accurately capture the growth trajectory of fluorescence where the best fit, precision, and relative efficiency are essential. Having this in mind, a new family of growth functions called TWW (Tabatabai, Wilus, Wallace) was introduced. This model is capable of accurately analyzing quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). This new family provides a reproducible quantitation of gene copies and is less labor-intensive than current quantitative methods. A new cycle threshold based on TWW that does not need the assumption of equal reaction efficiency was introduced. The performance of TWW was compared with 3 classical models (Gompertz, logistic, and Richard) using qPCR data. TWW models the relationship between the cycle number and fluorescence intensity, outperforming some state-of-the-art models in performance measures. The 3-parameter TWW model had the best model fit in 68.57% of all cases, followed by the Richard model (28.57%) and the logistic (2.86%). Gompertz had the worst fit in 88.57% of all cases. It had the best precision in 85.71% of all cases followed by Richard (14.29%). For all cases, Gompertz had the worst precision. TWW had the best relative efficiency in 54.29% of all cases, while the logistic model was best in 17.14% of all cases. Richard and Gompertz tied for the best relative efficiency in 14.29% of all cases. The results indicate that TWW is a good competitor when considering model fit, precision, and efficiency. The 3-parameter TWW model has fewer parameters when compared to the Richard model in analyzing qPCR data, which makes it less challenging to reach convergence.

TWW 生长模型及其在定量聚合酶链反应分析中的应用。
要准确捕捉荧光的生长轨迹,最佳拟合、精度和相对效率至关重要。有鉴于此,一种名为 TWW(Tabatabai、Wilus、Wallace)的新生长函数系列应运而生。该模型能够准确分析定量聚合酶链反应(qPCR)。与目前的定量方法相比,这一新系列可提供可重复的基因拷贝定量,而且劳动密集程度更低。引入了一种基于 TWW 的新周期阈值,它不需要假设反应效率相等。利用 qPCR 数据将 TWW 的性能与 3 个经典模型(Gompertz、Logistic 和 Richard)进行了比较。TWW 对周期数和荧光强度之间的关系进行了建模,在性能指标上优于一些最先进的模型。在 68.57% 的情况下,3 参数 TWW 模型的拟合效果最好,其次是 Richard 模型(28.57%)和 logistic 模型(2.86%)。在 88.57% 的案例中,Gompertz 的拟合效果最差。在 85.71% 的案例中,Gompertz 模型的精确度最高,其次是 Richard 模型(14.29%)。在所有情况下,Gompertz 的精确度最差。在 54.29% 的所有案例中,TWW 的相对效率最高,而在 17.14% 的所有案例中,Logistic 模型的相对效率最高。在 14.29% 的案例中,Richard 和 Gompertz 的相对效率并列第一。结果表明,在考虑模型拟合度、精确度和效率时,TWW 是一个很好的竞争者。在分析 qPCR 数据时,与 Richard 模型相比,3 参数 TWW 模型的参数较少,因此达到收敛的难度较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Bioinformatics and Biology Insights
Bioinformatics and Biology Insights BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS-
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
1.70%
发文量
36
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Bioinformatics and Biology Insights is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on bioinformatics methods and their applications which must pertain to biological insights. All papers should be easily amenable to biologists and as such help bridge the gap between theories and applications.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信