The risks of using the chi-square periodogram to estimate the period of biological rhythms

Michael C Tackenberg and Jacob J Hughey

PLOS Computational Biology, 2021, vol. 17, issue 1, 1-16

Abstract: 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.Author summary: The chi-square periodogram is a popular method for estimating period length, one of the most important properties of the daily biological rhythms found throughout nature. In this study, we identify a major source of inaccuracy in the chi-square periodogram, and quantify the inaccuracy using a broad array of simulated and experimentally observed biological rhythms. Although we revise the chi-square periodogram calculation to improve its accuracy, we also show that the revised version is still less accurate than an alternative method, the Lomb-Scargle periodogram. Our work thus provides evidence on how to obtain better estimates of the period of biological rhythms.

Date: 2021
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008567 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/fil ... 08567&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1008567

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008567

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS Computational Biology from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by ploscompbiol ().