ArticleBMC bioinformatics2006
Biologically relevant effects of mRNA amplification on gene expression profiles.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robust transcriptional signatures for low-input RNA samples based on relative expression orderings.BMC genomics · 2017Article
- The influence of cancer tissue sampling on the identification of cancer characteristics.Scientific reports · 2015Article
- Extraction of bacterial RNA from soil: challenges and solutions.Microbes and environments · 2012Review
- Evaluation of methods for amplification of picogram amounts of total RNA for whole genome expression profiling.BMC genomics · 2009Article
- Real-time monitoring of aRNA production during T7 amplification to prevent the loss of sample representation during microarray hybridization sample preparation.Nucleic acids research · 2009Article
- Comparison of dorsal root ganglion gene expression in rat models of traumatic and HIV-associated neuropathic pain.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2009Article
- Impact of sample acquisition and linear amplification on gene expression profiling of lung adenocarcinoma: laser capture micro-dissection cell-sampling versus bulk tissue-sampling.BMC medical genomics · 2009Article
- Technical analysis of cDNA microarrays.PloS one · 2009Article
- Defining a transcriptional fingerprint of murine splenic B-cell development.Genes and immunity · 2008Article
- Molecular correlates of laminar differences in the macaque dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2008Article
- Transcriptomic biomarkers for individual risk assessment in new-onset heart failure.Circulation · 2008Article
- A focused microarray to study human mitochondrial and nuclear gene expression.Biological research for nursing · 2008Article
- Amplification biases: possible differences among deviating gene expressions.BMC genomics · 2008Article
- Article
- Characterization of the effect of sample quality on high density oligonucleotide microarray data using progressively degraded rat liver RNA.BMC biotechnology · 2007Article
- Lysosomal integral membrane protein 2 is a novel component of the cardiac intercalated disc and vital for load-induced cardiac myocyte hypertrophy.The Journal of experimental medicine · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGene expression microarray technology permits the analysis of global gene expression profiles. The amount of sample needed limits the use of small excision biopsies and/or needle biopsies from human or animal tissues. Linear amplification techniques have been developed to increase the amount of sample derived cDNA. These amplified samples can be hybridised on microarrays. However, little information is available whether microarrays based on amplified and unamplified material yield comparable results. In the present study we compared microarray data obtained from amplified mRNA derived from biopsies of rat cardiac left ventricle and non-amplified mRNA derived from the same organ. Biopsies were linearly amplified to acquire enough material for a microarray experiment. Both amplified and unamplified samples were hybridized to the Rat Expression Set 230 Array of Affymetrix.
resultsAnalysis of the microarray data showed that unamplified material of two different left ventricles had 99.6% identical gene expression. Gene expression patterns of two biopsies obtained from the same parental organ were 96.3% identical. Similarly, gene expression pattern of two biopsies from dissimilar organs were 92.8% identical to each other.Twenty-one percent of reporters called present in parental left ventricular tissue disappeared after amplification in the biopsies. Those reporters were predominantly seen in the low intensity range. Sequence analysis showed that reporters that disappeared after amplification had a GC-content of 53.7+/-4.0%, while reporters called present in biopsy- and whole LV-samples had an average GC content of 47.8+/-5.5% (P <0.001). Those reporters were also predicted to form significantly more (0.76+/-0.07 versus 0.38+/-0.1) and longer (9.4+/-0.3 versus 8.4+/-0.4) hairpins as compared to representative control reporters present before and after amplification.
conclusionThis study establishes that the gene expression profile obtained after amplification of mRNA of left ventricular biopsies is representative for the whole left ventricle of the rat heart. However, specific gene transcripts present in parental tissues were undetectable in the minute left ventricular biopsies. Transcripts that were lost due to the amplification process were not randomly distributed, but had higher GC-content and hairpins in the sequence and were mainly found in the lower intensity range which includes many transcription factors from specific signalling pathways.
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.