ArticleBMC cancer2004
Microarray analysis in clinical oncology: pre-clinical optimization using needle core biopsies from xenograft tumors.
Article in BMC cancer, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ionizing radiation and glioblastoma exosomes: implications in tumor biology and cell migration.Translational oncology · 2013Article
- Article
- Evaluation of methods for amplification of picogram amounts of total RNA for whole genome expression profiling.BMC genomics · 2009Article
- Microarray amplification bias: loss of 30% differentially expressed genes due to long probe - poly(A)-tail distances.BMC genomics · 2007Article
- Characterization of a method for profiling gene expression in cells recovered from intact human prostate tissue using RNA linear amplification.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2006Article
- Options available for profiling small samples: a review of sample amplification technology when combined with microarray profiling.Nucleic acids research · 2006Review
- Limitations of mRNA amplification from small-size cell samples.BMC genomics · 2005Article
- An interventional magnetic resonance imaging technique for the molecular characterization of intraprostatic dynamic contrast enhancement.Molecular imagingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDNA microarray profiling performed on clinical tissue specimens can potentially provide significant information regarding human cancer biology. Biopsy cores, the typical source of human tumor tissue, however, generally provide very small amounts of RNA (0.3-15 microg). RNA amplification is a common method used to increase the amount of material available for hybridization experiments. Using human xenograft tissue, we sought to address the following three questions: 1) is amplified RNA representative of the original RNA profile? 2) what is the minimum amount of total RNA required to perform a representative amplification? 3) are the direct and indirect methods of labeling the hybridization probe equivalent?
methodsTotal RNA was extracted from human xenograft tissue and amplified using a linear amplification process. RNA was labeled and hybridized, and the resulting images yielded data that was extracted into two categories using the mAdb system: "all genes" and "outliers". Scatter plots were generated for each slide and Pearson Coefficients of correlation were obtained.
resultsResults show that the amplification of 5 microg of total RNA yields a Pearson Correlation Coefficient of 0.752 (N = 6,987 genes) between the amplified and total RNA samples. We subsequently determined that amplification of 0.5 microg of total RNA generated a similar Pearson Correlation Coefficient as compared to the corresponding original RNA sample. Similarly, sixty-nine percent of total RNA outliers were detected with 5 microg of amplified starting RNA, and 55% of outliers were detected with 0.5 microg of starting RNA. However, amplification of 0.05 microg of starting RNA resulted in a loss of fidelity (Pearson Coefficient 0.669 between amplified and original samples, 44% outlier concordance). In these studies the direct or indirect methods of probe labeling yielded similar results. Finally, we examined whether RNA obtained from needle core biopsies of human tumor xenografts, amplified and indirectly labeled, would generate representative array profiles compared to larger excisional biopsy material. In this analysis correlation coefficients were obtained ranging from 0.750-0.834 between U251 biopsy cores and excised tumors, and 0.812-0.846 between DU145 biopsy cores and excised tumors.
conclusionThese data suggest that needle core biopsies can be used as reliable tissue samples for tumor microarray analysis after linear amplification and either indirect or direct labeling of the starting RNA.
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.