The risks of using the chi-square periodogram to estimate the period of biological rhythms
The chi-square periodogram (CSP), developed over 40 years ago, continues to be one of the most popular methods to estimate the period of circadian (circa 24-h) rhythms. Previous work has indicated the CSP is sometimes less accurate than other methods, but understanding of why and under what conditio...
Saved in:
Published in | PLoS computational biology Vol. 17; no. 1; p. e1008567 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
United States
Public Library of Science
06.01.2021
Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | The chi-square periodogram (CSP), developed over 40 years ago, continues to be one of the most popular methods to estimate the period of circadian (circa 24-h) rhythms. Previous work has indicated the CSP is sometimes less accurate than other methods, but understanding of why and under what conditions remains incomplete. Using simulated rhythmic time-courses, we found that the CSP is prone to underestimating the period in a manner that depends on the true period and the length of the time-course. This underestimation bias is most severe in short time-courses (e.g., 3 days), but is also visible in longer simulated time-courses (e.g., 12 days) and in experimental time-courses of mouse wheel-running and ex vivo bioluminescence. We traced the source of the bias to discontinuities in the periodogram that are related to the number of time-points the CSP uses to calculate the observed variance for a given test period. By revising the calculation to avoid discontinuities, we developed a new version, the greedy CSP, that shows reduced bias and improved accuracy. Nonetheless, even the greedy CSP tended to be less accurate on our simulated time-courses than an alternative method, namely the Lomb-Scargle periodogram. Thus, although our study describes a major improvement to a classic method, it also suggests that users should generally avoid the CSP when estimating the period of biological rhythms. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | new_version ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. |
ISSN: | 1553-7358 1553-734X 1553-7358 |
DOI: | 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008567 |