ArticleGenome biology2003
MicroSAGE is highly representative and reproducible but reveals major differences in gene expression among samples obtained from similar tissues.
Article in Genome biology, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Retinome - defining a reference transcriptome of the adult mammalian retina/retinal pigment epithelium.BMC genomics · 2004Pooled it
- The Dynamic Epigenetic Landscape of the Retina During Development, Reprogramming, and Tumorigenesis.Neuron · 2017Article
- Next generation sequencing technology and genomewide data analysis: Perspectives for retinal research.Progress in retinal and eye research · 2016Review
- Deep analysis of cellular transcriptomes - LongSAGE versus classic MPSS.BMC genomics · 2007Article
- Perturbation of interaction networks for application to cancer therapy.Cancer informatics · 2007Article
- Defining the human macula transcriptome and candidate retinal disease genes using EyeSAGE.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2006Article
- Identifying differential expression in multiple SAGE libraries: an overdispersed log-linear model approach.BMC bioinformatics · 2005Article
- Genomic analysis of mouse retinal development.PLoS biology · 2004Article
- Clustering analysis of SAGE data using a Poisson approach.Genome biology · 2004Article
- Cryptococcus neoformans gene expression during experimental cryptococcal meningitis.Eukaryotic cell · 2003Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSerial analysis of gene expression using small amounts of starting material (microSAGE) has not yet been conclusively shown to be representative, reproducible or accurate.
resultsWe show that microSAGE is highly representative, reproducible and accurate, but that pronounced differences in gene expression are seen between tissue samples taken from different individuals.
conclusionsMicroSAGE is a reliable method of comprehensively profiling differences in gene expression among samples, but care should be taken in generalizing results obtained from libraries constructed from tissue obtained from different individuals and/or processed or stored differently.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.