ArticleBMC genomics2008
A process for analysis of microarray comparative genomics hybridisation studies for bacterial genomes.
Article in BMC genomics, 2008. 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, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of transcriptomics and genomics to assess the effect of disinfectant exposure on the survival and resistance ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
- A sensitive method for the recovery of Escherichia coli serogroup O55 including Shiga toxin-producing variants for potential use in outbreaks.Journal of applied microbiology · 2019Article
- Livestock-Associated Methicillin-ResistantFrontiers in microbiology · 2019Review
- Molecular Methods for Detection of Antimicrobial Resistance.Microbiology spectrum · 2017Review
- Genomic characterization of Sinorhizobium meliloti AK21, a wild isolate from the Aral Sea Region.SpringerPlus · 2015Article
- Species and gene divergence in Littorina snails detected by array comparative genomic hybridization.BMC genomics · 2014Article
- Comparison of alternative mixture model methods to analyze bacterial CGH experiments with multi-genome arrays.BMC research notes · 2014Article
- Genomotyping of Coxiella burnetii using microarrays reveals a conserved genomotype for hard tick isolates.PloS one · 2011Article
- Phylogenetic, microbiological, and glycoside hydrolase diversities within the extremely thermophilic, plant biomass-degrading genus Caldicellulosiruptor.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2010Article
- Probing the pan-genome of Listeria monocytogenes: new insights into intraspecific niche expansion and genomic diversification.BMC genomics · 2010Article
- Article
- Microarray comparative genomic hybridisation analysis incorporating genomic organisation, and application to enterobacterial plant pathogens.PLoS computational biology · 2009Article
- Article
- Improved analysis of bacterial CGH data beyond the log-ratio paradigm.BMC bioinformatics · 2009Article
- Optimal control and analysis of two-color genomotyping experiments using bacterial multistrain arrays.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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMicroarray based comparative genomic hybridisation (CGH) experiments have been used to study numerous biological problems including understanding genome plasticity in pathogenic bacteria. Typically such experiments produce large data sets that are difficult for biologists to handle. Although there are some programmes available for interpretation of bacterial transcriptomics data and CGH microarray data for looking at genetic stability in oncogenes, there are none specifically to understand the mosaic nature of bacterial genomes. Consequently a bottle neck still persists in accurate processing and mathematical analysis of these data. To address this shortfall we have produced a simple and robust CGH microarray data analysis process that may be automated in the future to understand bacterial genomic diversity.
resultsThe process involves five steps: cleaning, normalisation, estimating gene presence and absence or divergence, validation, and analysis of data from test against three reference strains simultaneously. Each stage of the process is described and we have compared a number of methods available for characterising bacterial genomic diversity, for calculating the cut-off between gene presence and absence or divergence, and shown that a simple dynamic approach using a kernel density estimator performed better than both established, as well as a more sophisticated mixture modelling technique. We have also shown that current methods commonly used for CGH microarray analysis in tumour and cancer cell lines are not appropriate for analysing our data.
conclusionAfter carrying out the analysis and validation for three sequenced Escherichia coli strains, CGH microarray data from 19 E. coli O157 pathogenic test strains were used to demonstrate the benefits of applying this simple and robust process to CGH microarray studies using bacterial genomes.
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.