ArticleBMC research notes2008
Development and application of a microarray meter tool to optimize microarray experiments.
Article in BMC research notes, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrated Genomic and Bioinformatics Approaches to Identify Molecular Links between Endocrine Disruptors and Adverse Outcomes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- High-resolution epifluorescence and time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry chemical imaging comparisons of single DNA microarray spots.Analytical chemistry · 2012Article
- Teleost fish (Solea solea): a novel model for ecotoxicological assay of contaminated sediments.Aquatic toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2012Article
- Two high-throughput screening assays for aberrant RNA-protein interactions in myotonic dystrophy type 1.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSuccessful microarray experimentation requires a complex interplay between the slide chemistry, the printing pins, the nucleic acid probes and targets, and the hybridization milieu. Optimization of these parameters and a careful evaluation of emerging slide chemistries are a prerequisite to any large scale array fabrication effort. We have developed a 'microarray meter' tool which assesses the inherent variations associated with microarray measurement prior to embarking on large scale projects.
findingsThe microarray meter consists of nucleic acid targets (reference and dynamic range control) and probe components. Different plate designs containing identical probe material were formulated to accommodate different robotic and pin designs. We examined the variability in probe quality and quantity (as judged by the amount of DNA printed and remaining post-hybridization) using three robots equipped with capillary printing pins. DISCUSSION: The generation of microarray data with minimal variation requires consistent quality control of the (DNA microarray) manufacturing and experimental processes. Spot reproducibility is a measure primarily of the variations associated with printing. The microarray meter assesses array quality by measuring the DNA content for every feature. It provides a post-hybridization analysis of array quality by scoring probe performance using three metrics, a) a measure of variability in the signal intensities, b) a measure of the signal dynamic range and c) a measure of variability of the spot morphologies.
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.