Comparison of five popular normalization methods using a spike-in proteomics data set

Mass spectrometry (MS)-based proteomics has seen significant technical advances during the past two decades and mass spectrometry has become a central tool in many biosciences. Despite the popularity of MS-based methods, the handling of the systematic non-biological variation in the data remains a common problem. This biasing variation can result from several sources ranging from sample handling to differences caused by the instrumentation. Normalization is the procedure which aims to account for this biasing variation and make samples comparable. Many normalization methods commonly used in proteomics have been adapted from the DNA-microarray world. Studies comparing normalization methods with proteomics data sets using some variability measures exist. However, a more thorough comparison looking at the quantitative and qualitative differences of the performance of the different normalization methods and at their ability in preserving the true differential expression signal of proteins, is lacking. In this thesis, several popular and widely used normalization methods (the Linear regression normalization, Local regression normalization, Variance stabilizing normalization, Quantile-normalization, Median central tendency normalization and also variants of some of the forementioned methods), representing different strategies in normalization are being compared and evaluated with a benchmark spike-in proteomics data set. The normalization methods are evaluated in several ways. The performance of the normalization methods is evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively on a global scale and in pairwise comparisons of sample groups. In addition, it is investigated, whether performing the normalization globally on the whole data or pairwise for the comparison pairs examined, affects the performance of the normalization method in normalizing the data and preserving the true differential expression signal. In this thesis, both major and minor differences in the performance of the different normalization methods were found. Also, the way in which the normalization was performed (global normalization of the whole data or pairwise normalization of the comparison pair) affected the performance of some of the methods in pairwise comparisons. Differences among variants of the same methods were also observed.

To Integrate Or Not: A Comparison of the English Skills of Finnish Students in Mainstream Education and Content and Language Integrated Learning

The objective of the thesis was to study the possible linguistic differences of English of Finnish mainstream students and Finnish students following content and language integrated learning (CLIL), in terms of the given language test. The difference of test results between the test groups was further analyzed in more detail. The research was carried out by comparing the 9th grade students of the Finnish comprehensive school (the mainstream group) and CLIL students of the 9th grade of the Finnish comprehensive school (the CLIL group). The comparison was based on the national language test for the 9th grade students of the Finnish comprehensive school 2006 (A-English), produced by Sukol-Palvelu, owned by the Federation of Foreign Language Teachers in Finland SUKOL. The mainstream group of the present study consisted of 30 students, whereas the CLIL group included 27 students. Testing was carried out in spring 2007. The test results of the mainstream group (average of 64.1% out of the maximum score) were consistent with the results of the national average (63.9%). The average score of the CLIL students for the present study was 83.3% out of the maximum score. The results of the two groups in question were rather similar in the tasks measuring the skill of listening comprehension, in addition to one of the reading comprehension tasks. Moreover, a particular task with requirements of cultural and reactional skills produced results rather similar between the test groups. The differences between the results of the mainstream group and the CLIL group were most evident in three particular tasks. In general, the CLIL group performed clearly better than the mainstream group in the task measuring the knowledge of the polite conversational manners of the English-speaking world and in the tasks with requirements of lexical and structural knowledge of English. However, the writing task resulted in the most evident difference of results between the groups. In other words, the CLIL students of the present study were clearly more capable of producing English language with more varied vocabulary and more complex structures than the mainstream students. Thus, it might be argued whether the CLIL programme is to enhance the students´ performance in the productive skill of writing in particular. As a result, it might be useful to consider the possibilities of the CLIL programme in developing certain linguistic skills of the mainstream students of English as well.

Idiosyncratic volatility around information release date

Several papers document idiosyncratic volatility is time-varying and many attempts have been made to reveal whether idiosyncratic risk is priced. This research studies behavior of idiosyncratic volatility around information release dates and also its relation with return after public announcement. The results indicate that when a company discloses specific information to the market, firm’s specific volatility level shifts and short-horizon event-induced volatility vary significantly however, the category to which the announcement belongs is not important in magnitude of change. This event-induced volatility is not small in size and should not be downplayed in event studies. Moreover, this study shows stocks with higher contemporaneous realized idiosyncratic volatility earn lower return after public announcement consistent with “divergence of opinion hypothesis”. While no significant relation is found between EGARCH estimated idiosyncratic volatility and return and also between one-month lagged idiosyncratic volatility and return presumably due to significant jump around public announcement both may provide some signals regarding future idiosyncratic volatility through their correlations with contemporaneous realized idiosyncratic volatility. Finally, the study show that positive relation between return and idiosyncratic volatility based on under-diversification is inadequate to explain all different scenarios and this negative relation after public announcement may provide a useful trading rule.