Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16542485›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2006

Comparative evaluation of linear and exponential amplification techniques for expression profiling at the single-cell level.

Tatiana Subkhankulova, Frederick J Livesey

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Single-Cell Isolation and Gene Analysis: Pitfalls and Possibilities.International journal of molecular sciences · 2015
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Single-cell profiling of developing and mature retinal neurons.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2012
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The transcriptome of retinal Müller glial cells.The Journal of comparative neurology · 2008
    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

2 authors.

Tatiana SubkhankulovaGurdon Institute and Department of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, Tennis Court Road, Cambridge, CB2 1QN, UK.
Frederick J Livesey

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSingle-cell microarray expression profiling requires 108-109-fold amplification of the picogram amounts of total RNA typically found in eukaryotic cells. Several methods for RNA amplification are in general use, but little consideration has been given to the comparative analysis of those methods in terms of the overall validity of the data generated when amplifying from single-cell amounts of RNA, rather than their empirical performance in single studies.

resultsWe tested the performance of three methods for amplifying single-cell amounts of RNA under ideal conditions: T7-based in vitro transcription; switching mechanism at 5' end of RNA template (SMART) PCR amplification; and global PCR amplification. All methods introduced amplification-dependent noise when mRNA was amplified 108-fold, compared with data from unamplified cDNA. PCR-amplified cDNA demonstrated the smallest number of differences between two parallel replicate samples and the best correlation between independent amplifications from the same cell type, with SMART outperforming global PCR amplification. SMART had the highest true-positive rate and the lowest false-positive rate when comparing expression between two different cell types, but had the lowest absolute discovery rate of all three methods. Direct comparison of the performance of SMART and global PCR amplification on single-cell amounts of total RNA and on single neural stem cells confirmed these findings.

conclusionUnder the conditions tested, PCR amplification was more reliable than linear amplification for detecting true expression differences between samples. SMART amplification had a higher true-positive rate than global amplification, but at the expense of a considerably lower absolute discovery rate and a systematic compression of observed expression ratios.

Indexed as

Gene Amplification3T3 CellsAnimalsCell LineDNA-Directed RNA PolymerasesDNA PrimersFemaleGene Expression ProfilingMiceOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisOvaryPolymerase Chain ReactionReproducibility of ResultsRNATranscription, GeneticViral Proteinsbacteriophage T7 RNA polymeraseDNA-Directed RNA PolymerasesDNA PrimersRNAViral Proteins

Identifiers

PMID16542485
PMCPMC1557751

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.