Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19272143›Full record

ArticleBMC medical genomics2009

Impact of sample acquisition and linear amplification on gene expression profiling of lung adenocarcinoma: laser capture micro-dissection cell-sampling versus bulk tissue-sampling.

Eric W Klee, Sibel Erdogan, Lori Tillmans, Farhad Kosari, Zhifu Sun, Dennis A Wigle, Ping Yang, Marie C Aubry, George Vasmatzis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical genomics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. SIVQ-LCM protocol for the ArcturusXT instrument.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2014
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Why is it crucial to reintegrate pathology into cancer research?BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2011
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Site-specific differences in gene expression of secreted proteins in the mouse lung: comparison of methods to show differences by location.The journal of histochemistry and cytochemistry : official journal of the Histochemistry Society · 2010
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Multiplex quantitative measurement of mRNAs from fixed tissue microarray sections.Applied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology : AIMM
    Review
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.

Eric W KleeDepartment of Molecular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. klee.eric@mayo.edu
Sibel Erdogan
Lori Tillmans
Farhad Kosari
Zhifu Sun
Dennis A Wigle
Ping Yang
Marie C Aubry
George Vasmatzis

Funding

ALPHA 1 AD CARRIERS AND LUNG CANCER RISKR01CA080127 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI YANG, PING · 2000 to 2009
$4.4M
Genetic Determinants of Lung Cancer SurvivalR01CA084354 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI YANG, PING · 2001 to 2012
$4.0M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA080127NCI NIH HHS R01 CA084354
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe methods used for sample selection and processing can have a strong influence on the expression values obtained through microarray profiling. Laser capture microdissection (LCM) provides higher specificity in the selection of target cells compared to traditional bulk tissue selection methods, but at an increased processing cost. The benefit gained from the higher tissue specificity realized through LCM sampling is evaluated in this study through a comparison of microarray expression profiles obtained from same-samples using bulk and LCM processing.

methodsExpression data from ten lung adenocarcinoma samples and six adjacent normal samples were acquired using LCM and bulk sampling methods. Expression values were evaluated for correlation between sample processing methods, as well as for bias introduced by the additional linear amplification required for LCM sample profiling.

resultsThe direct comparison of expression values obtained from the bulk and LCM sampled datasets reveals a large number of probesets with significantly varied expression. Many of these variations were shown to be related to bias arising from the process of linear amplification, which is required for LCM sample preparation. A comparison of differentially expressed genes (cancer vs. normal) selected in the bulk and LCM datasets also showed substantial differences. There were more than twice as many down-regulated probesets identified in the LCM data than identified in the bulk data. Controlling for the previously identified amplification bias did not have a substantial impact on the differences identified in the differentially expressed probesets found in the bulk and LCM samples.

conclusionLCM-coupled microarray expression profiling was shown to uniquely identify a large number of differentially expressed probesets not otherwise found using bulk tissue sampling. The information gain realized from the LCM sampling was limited to differential analysis, as the absolute expression values obtained for some probesets using this study's protocol were biased during the second round of amplification. Consequently, LCM may enable investigators to obtain additional information in microarray studies not easily found using bulk tissue samples, but it is of critical importance that potential amplification biases are controlled for.

Identifiers

PMID19272143
PMCPMC2667433

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.