Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19371429›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2009

Estimating accuracy of RNA-Seq and microarrays with proteomics.

Xing Fu, Ning Fu, Song Guo, Zheng Yan, Ying Xu, Hao Hu, Corinna Menzel, Wei Chen, Yixue Li, Rong Zeng and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 156 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
156citing 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

156 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Peonidin-3-Nutrients · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

96 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

11 authors.

Xing FuKey lab of Systems Biology, Shanghai Institutes for Biological Sciences, China Academy of Sciences, Shanghai, 200031, PR China. xfu@sibs.ac.cn
Ning Fu
Song Guo
Zheng Yan
Ying Xu
Hao Hu
Corinna Menzel
Wei Chen
Yixue Li
Rong Zeng
Philipp Khaitovich

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMicroarrays revolutionized biological research by enabling gene expression comparisons on a transcriptome-wide scale. Microarrays, however, do not estimate absolute expression level accurately. At present, high throughput sequencing is emerging as an alternative methodology for transcriptome studies. Although free of many limitations imposed by microarray design, its potential to estimate absolute transcript levels is unknown.

resultsIn this study, we evaluate relative accuracy of microarrays and transcriptome sequencing (RNA-Seq) using third methodology: proteomics. We find that RNA-Seq provides a better estimate of absolute expression levels.

conclusionOur result shows that in terms of overall technical performance, RNA-Seq is the technique of choice for studies that require accurate estimation of absolute transcript levels.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisProteomicsReproducibility of ResultsRNA, MessengerSequence Analysis, RNARNA, Messenger

Identifiers

PMID19371429
PMCPMC2676304

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.