ArticleElectrophoresis2009
Components of variance in transcriptomics based on electrophoretic separation of cDNA fragments (cDNA-AFLP).
Article in Electrophoresis, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Insights into the role of differential gene expression on the ecological adaptation of the snail Littorina saxatilis.BMC evolutionary biology · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The sources of variance and errors in transcriptomics based on the electrophoretic separation of amplified cDNA fragments were investigated using cDNA-amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP). Transcriptome profiles of the plant-pathogenic fungus Verticillium longisporum were generated by a standard cDNA-AFLP protocol followed by electrophoretic separation of amplified DNA fragments in flatbed polyacrylamide gels with fluorescence detection as well as by capillary electrophoresis (DNA sequencer). The total variance was partitioned into contributions of cDNA synthesis, adapter ligation, preamplification, amplification, and electrophoresis. Parameters of computer-aided peak recognition and matching were investigated and strategies improving matching success based on double passage with different signal intensity thresholds were developed. The overall quality of data was similar for cDNA-AFLP and microarray hybridization. Variance of cDNA-AFLP was independent of signal intensity, whereas microarray data showed higher variance for low-intensity signals. Capillary electrophoresis significantly reduced the number of wrongly matched and unmatched signals as compared with flatbed gels. These results are also likely to apply to related electrophoresis-based transcriptome analysis techniques such as mRNA differential display.
Indexed as
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.