ArticleBMC genomics2006
Detection of transcriptional difference of porcine imprinted genes using different microarray platforms.
Article in BMC genomics, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- From reflux esophagitis to Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma.World journal of gastroenterology · 2015Review
- Longissimus dorsi transcriptome analysis of purebred and crossbred Iberian pigs differing in muscle characteristics.BMC genomics · 2014Article
- Karyotype characterization of in vivo- and in vitro-derived porcine parthenogenetic cell lines.PloS one · 2014Article
- Fatty acid and transcriptome profiling of longissimus dorsi muscles between pig breeds differing in meat quality.International journal of biological sciences · 2013Article
- Article
- Identification of sense and antisense transcripts regulated by drought in sugarcane.Plant molecular biology · 2012Article
- Transgenic Stra8-EYFP pigs: a model for developing male germ cell technologies.Transgenic research · 2012Article
- Article
- Article
- Varying phenotypes in swine versus murine transgenic models constitutively expressing the same human Sonic hedgehog transcriptional activator, K5-HGLI2 Delta N.Transgenic research · 2010Article
- Characterization of conserved and nonconserved imprinted genes in swine.Biology of reproduction · 2009Article
- Application of chicken microarrays for gene expression analysis in other avian species.BMC genomics · 2009Article
- Identification of SNPs and INDELS in swine transcribed sequences using short oligonucleotide microarrays.BMC genomics · 2008Article
- Characterization of a newly developed chicken 44K Agilent microarray.BMC genomics · 2008Article
- Time course differential gene expression in response to porcine circovirus type 2 subclinical infection.Veterinary researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPresently, multiple options exist for conducting gene expression profiling studies in swine. In order to determine the performance of some of the existing microarrays, Affymetrix Porcine, Affymetrix Human U133+2.0, and the U.S. Pig Genome Coordination Program spotted glass oligonucleotide microarrays were compared for their reproducibility, coverage, platform independent and dependent sensitivity using fibroblast cell lines derived from control and parthenogenic porcine embryos.
resultsArray group correlations between technical replicates demonstrated comparable reproducibility in both Affymetrix arrays. Glass oligonucleotide arrays showed greater variability and, in addition, approximately 10% of probes had to be discarded due to slide printing defects. Probe level analysis of Affymetrix Human arrays revealed significant variability within probe sets due to the effects of cross-species hybridization. Affymetrix Porcine arrays identified the greatest number of differentially expressed genes amongst probes common to all arrays, a measure of platform sensitivity. Affymetrix Porcine arrays also identified the greatest number of differentially expressed known imprinted genes using all probes on each array, an ad hoc measure of realistic performance for this particular experiment.
conclusionWe conclude that of the platforms currently available and tested, the Affymetrix Porcine array is the most sensitive and reproducible microarray for swine genomic studies.
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.