ArticleGenome biology2006
Comparative evaluation of linear and exponential amplification techniques for expression profiling at the single-cell level.
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.
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
26 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Double-Hybridization Approach for the Transcription- and Amplification-Free Detection of Specific mRNA on a Microarray.Microarrays (Basel, Switzerland) · 2016Article
- Single-Cell Isolation and Gene Analysis: Pitfalls and Possibilities.International journal of molecular sciences · 2015Review
- Application of an RNA amplification method for reliable single-cell transcriptome analysis.BioTechniques · 2015Article
- The stage-specific testicular germ cell apoptotic response to low-dose X-irradiation and 2,5-hexanedione combined exposure. I: Validation of the laser capture microdissection method for qRT-PCR array application.Toxicologic pathology · 2014Article
- Fidelity and representativeness of two isothermal multiple displacement amplification systems to preamplify limiting amounts of total RNA.Molecular biotechnology · 2014Article
- Article
- Single-cell profiling of developing and mature retinal neurons.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2012Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Amplification-free digital gene expression profiling from minute cell quantities.Nature methods · 2010Article
- Digital transcriptome profiling from attomole-level RNA samples.Genome research · 2010Article
- Grouping and classifying electrophysiologically-defined classes of neocortical neurons by single cell, whole-genome expression profiling.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2010Article
- A comparison of RNA amplification techniques at sub-nanogram input concentration.BMC genomics · 2009Article
- Prolonged illumination up-regulates arrestin and two guanylate cyclase activating proteins: a novel mechanism for light adaptation.The Journal of physiology · 2009Article
- Extensive molecular differences between anterior- and posterior-half-sclerotomes underlie somite polarity and spinal nerve segmentation.BMC developmental biology · 2009Article
- Article
- Quantification of mRNA in single cells and modelling of RT-qPCR induced noise.BMC molecular biology · 2008Article
- The transcriptome of retinal Müller glial cells.The Journal of comparative neurology · 2008Article
- Modelling and measuring single cell RNA expression levels find considerable transcriptional differences among phenotypically identical cells.BMC genomics · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
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
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.