Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15955238›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2005

Evaluation of the similarity of gene expression data estimated with SAGE and Affymetrix GeneChips.

Fred van Ruissen, Jan M Ruijter, Gerben J Schaaf, Lida Asgharnegad, Danny A Zwijnenburg, Marcel Kool, Frank Baas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Volatile Organic Compounds ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2022
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Developmental staging of male murine embryonic gonad by SAGE analysis.Journal of genetics and genomics = Yi chuan xue bao · 2009
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Fred van RuissenDepartment of Neurogenetics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands. f.vanruissen@amc.uva.nl
Jan M Ruijter
Gerben J Schaaf
Lida Asgharnegad
Danny A Zwijnenburg
Marcel Kool
Frank Baas

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSerial Analysis of Gene Expression (SAGE) and microarrays have found a widespread application, but much ambiguity exists regarding the evaluation of these technologies. Cross-platform utilization of gene expression data from the SAGE and microarray technology could reduce the need for duplicate experiments and facilitate a more extensive exchange of data within the research community. This requires a measure for the correspondence of the different gene expression platforms. To date, a number of cross-platform evaluations (including a few studies using SAGE and Affymetrix GeneChips) have been conducted showing a variable, but overall low, concordance. This study evaluates these overall measures and introduces the between-ratio difference as a concordance measure pergene.

resultsIn this study, gene expression measurements of Unigene clusters represented by both Affymetrix GeneChips HG-U133A and SAGE were compared using two independent RNA samples. After matching of the data sets the final comparison contains a small data set of 1094 unique Unigene clusters, which is unbiased with respect to expression level. Different overall correlation approaches, like Up/Down classification, contingency tables and correlation coefficients were used to compare both platforms. In addition, we introduce a novel approach to compare two platforms based on the calculation of differences between expression ratios observed in each platform for each individual transcript. This approach results in a concordance measure per gene (with statistical probability value), as opposed to the commonly used overall concordance measures between platforms.

conclusionWe can conclude that intra-platform correlations are generally good, but that overall agreement between the two platforms is modest. This might be due to the binomially distributed sampling variation in SAGE tag counts, SAGE annotation errors and the intensity variation between probe sets of a single gene in Affymetrix GeneChips. We cannot identify or advice which platform performs better since both have their (dis)-advantages. Therefore it is strongly recommended to perform follow-up studies of interesting genes using additional techniques. The newly introduced between-ratio difference is a filtering-independent measure for between-platform concordance. Moreover, the between-ratio difference per gene can be used to detect transcripts with similar regulation on both platforms.

Indexed as

Gene Expression RegulationMolecular Probe TechniquesCell Line, TumorCluster AnalysisDNA, ComplementaryDNA ProbesGene ExpressionHumansMicroarray AnalysisOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisReproducibility of ResultsRNARNA, ComplementaryRNA, MessengerRNA, NeoplasmSensitivity and SpecificityDNA, ComplementaryDNA ProbesRNARNA, ComplementaryRNA, MessengerRNA, Neoplasm

Identifiers

PMID15955238
PMCPMC1186021

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.