Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18578872›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2008

Performance comparison of two microarray platforms to assess differential gene expression in human monocyte and macrophage cells.

Seraya Maouche, Odette Poirier, Tiphaine Godefroy, Robert Olaso, Ivo Gut, Jean-Phillipe Collet, Gilles Montalescot, François Cambien

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
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 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Seraya MaoucheINSERM UMR S525, Faculté de Médecine Pierre et Marie Curie, Université Paris VI, 91 Boulevard de l'Hôpital, Paris 75634 Cedex 13, France. maouche@chups.jussieu.fr
Odette Poirier
Tiphaine Godefroy
Robert Olaso
Ivo Gut
Jean-Phillipe Collet
Gilles Montalescot
François Cambien
Inserm · FRSorbonne Université · FRCentre National de Recherche en Génomique Humaine · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn this study we assessed the respective ability of Affymetrix and Illumina microarray methodologies to answer a relevant biological question, namely the change in gene expression between resting monocytes and macrophages derived from these monocytes. Five RNA samples for each type of cell were hybridized to the two platforms in parallel. In addition, a reference list of differentially expressed genes (DEG) was generated from a larger number of hybridizations (mRNA from 86 individuals) using the RNG/MRC two-color platform.

resultsOur results show an important overlap of the Illumina and Affymetrix DEG lists. In addition, more than 70% of the genes in these lists were also present in the reference list. Overall the two platforms had very similar performance in terms of biological significance, evaluated by the presence in the DEG lists of an excess of genes belonging to Gene Ontology (GO) categories relevant for the biology of monocytes and macrophages. Our results support the conclusion of the MicroArray Quality Control (MAQC) project that the criteria used to constitute the DEG lists strongly influence the degree of concordance among platforms. However the importance of prioritizing genes by magnitude of effect (fold change) rather than statistical significance (p-value) to enhance cross-platform reproducibility recommended by the MAQC authors was not supported by our data.

conclusionFunctional analysis based on GO enrichment demonstrates that the 2 compared technologies delivered very similar results and identified most of the relevant GO categories enriched in the reference list.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyDatabases, GeneticDNA ProbesFalse Positive ReactionsGene Expression ProfilingHumansMacrophagesMonocytesOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisQuality ControlReference StandardsRegression AnalysisReproducibility of ResultsRNA, MessengerDNA ProbesRNA, Messenger

Identifiers

PMID18578872
PMCPMC2464609
OpenAlexW2011480812

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.