Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18284693›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2008

Complementary RNA amplification methods enhance microarray identification of transcripts expressed in the C. elegans nervous system.

Joseph D Watson, Shenglong Wang, Stephen E Von Stetina, W Clay Spencer, Shawn Levy, Phillip J Dexheimer, Nurith Kurn, Joe Don Heath, David M Miller

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Joseph D WatsonDepartment of Cell and Developmental Biology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37232-8240, USA. joseph.watson@vanderbilt.edu
Shenglong Wang
Stephen E Von Stetina
W Clay Spencer
Shawn Levy
Phillip J Dexheimer
Nurith Kurn
Joe Don Heath
David M Miller
Vanderbilt University · US

Funding

Tumor Immunology and Microenvironment Research ProgramP30CA068485 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI MATTHEW J TYSKA · 1995 to 2026
$172.8M
Translational Analysis CoreP30DK058404 · NIDDK · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI RICHARD M. PEEK · 2002 to 2026
$29.9M
TRANSGENIC MOUSE/ ES CELL SHARES RESOURCESP60DK020593 · NIDDK · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI MCGUINNESS, OWEN P · 1986 to 2011
$28.1M
Shop Module CoreP30EY008126 · NEI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI Kevin L Schey · 1989 to 2026
$19.6M
THREE-TIERED PREVENTION MODEL TO BETTER SERVE ALL STUDENP30HD015052 · NICHD · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI DYKENS, ELISABETH MAY · 1985 to 2014
$18.6M
Training in Fundamental NeuroscienceT32MH064913 · NIMH · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI IHRIE, REBECCA A, WINDER, DANNY G. · 2001 to 2022
$7.6M
Global Identification of transcribed elements in the C. elegans genomeU01HG004263 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI WATERSTON, ROBERT H · 2007 to 2011
$7.3M
MOLECULAR PHYSIOLOGY OF MEMBRANE TRANSPORT IN C ELEGANSP01DK058212 · NIDDK · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI STRANGE, KEVIN · 2000 to 2004
$4.0M
MOLECULAR GENETICS OF NEURAL SPECIFICITYR01NS026115 · NINDS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI MILLER, DAVID M · 1994 to 2010
$3.0M
Neuronal gene regulation by the synaptic protein RPM-1F31NS049743 · NINDS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI WATSON, JOSEPH D · 2004 to 2006
$77k
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA068485NCI NIH HHS P30 CA68485NEI NIH HHS P30 EY008126NEI NIH HHS P30 EY08126NHGRI NIH HHS HG004263NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG004263NHLBI NIH HHS P01 HL6744NICHD NIH HHS HD15052NICHD NIH HHS P30 HD015052NIDDK NIH HHS P01 DK058212NIDDK NIH HHS P01 DK58212NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK058404NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK58404NIDDK NIH HHS P60 DK020593NIDDK NIH HHS P60 DK20593NIMH NIH HHS T32 MH064913NIMH NIH HHS T32 MH64913NINDS NIH HHS F31 NS049743NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS026115NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS26115
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDNA microarrays provide a powerful method for global analysis of gene expression. The application of this technology to specific cell types and tissues, however, is typically limited by small amounts of available mRNA, thereby necessitating amplification. Here we compare microarray results obtained with two different methods of RNA amplification to profile gene expression in the C. elegans larval nervous system.

resultsWe used the mRNA-tagging strategy to isolate transcripts specifically from C. elegans larval neurons. The WT-Ovation Pico System (WT-Pico) was used to amplify 2 ng of pan-neural RNA to produce labeled cDNA for microarray analysis. These WT-Pico-derived data were compared to microarray results obtained with a labeled aRNA target generated by two rounds of In Vitro Transcription (IVT) of 25 ng of pan-neural RNA. WT-Pico results in a higher fraction of present calls than IVT, a finding consistent with the proposal that DNA-DNA hybridization results in lower mismatch signals than the RNA-DNA heteroduplexes produced by IVT amplification. Microarray data sets from these samples were compared to a reference profile of all larval cells to identify transcripts with elevated expression in neurons. These results were validated by the high proportion of known neuron-expressed genes detected in these profiles and by promoter-GFP constructs for previously uncharacterized genes in these data sets. Together, the IVT and WT-Pico methods identified 2,173 unique neuron-enriched transcripts. Only about half of these transcripts (1,044), however, are detected as enriched by both IVT and WT-Pico amplification.

conclusionWe show that two different methods of RNA amplification, IVT and WT-Pico, produce valid microarray profiles of gene expression in the C. elegans larval nervous system with a low rate of false positives. However, our results also show that each method of RNA amplification detects a unique subset of bona fide neural-enriched transcripts and thus a wider array of authentic neural genes are identified by the combination of these data sets than by the microarray profiles obtained with either method of RNA amplification alone. With its relative ease of implementation and greater sensitivity, WT-Pico is the preferred method of amplification for cases in which sample RNA is limiting.

Indexed as

AnimalsCaenorhabditis elegansGene Expression ProfilingLarvaNervous SystemNeuronsNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisReproducibility of ResultsRNA, ComplementaryRNA, Complementary

Identifiers

PMID18284693
PMCPMC2263045
OpenAlexW2016351200

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.