Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19615109›Full record

ArticleBMC proceedings2009

Comparison of three microarray probe annotation pipelines: differences in strategies and their effect on downstream analysis.

Pieter Bt Neerincx, Pierrot Casel, Dennis Prickett, Haisheng Nie, Michael Watson, Jack Am Leunissen, Martien Am Groenen, Christophe Klopp

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC proceedings, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. SigReannot-mart: a query environment for expression microarray probe re-annotations.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2011
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Pieter Bt Neerincx *Laboratory of Bioinformatics, Wageningen University and Research centre (WUR), P.O. Box 569, 6700 AN Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Pierrot Casel *Sigenae UR875 Biométrie et Intelligence Artificielle/Génétique Cellulaire, Institut National de la Recherche Agrinomique (INRA), BP 52627, 31326 Castanet-Tolosan Cedex, France.
Dennis Prickett *Institute for Animal Health (IAH), Compton, nr Newbury, RG20 7NN, UK.
Haisheng Nie *Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen University and Research centre (WUR), P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Michael Watson *Institute for Animal Health (IAH), Compton, nr Newbury, RG20 7NN, UK.
Jack Am LeunissenLaboratory of Bioinformatics, Wageningen University and Research centre (WUR), P.O. Box 569, 6700 AN Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Martien Am GroenenAnimal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen University and Research centre (WUR), P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Christophe Klopp *Sigenae UR875 Biométrie et Intelligence Artificielle/Génétique Cellulaire, Institut National de la Recherche Agrinomique (INRA), BP 52627, 31326 Castanet-Tolosan Cedex, France.
Wageningen University & Research · NLInstitut National de la Recherche Agronomique · MALaboratoire de Génétique Cellulaire · FRNewbury College · USThe Pirbright Institute · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/I/00001425
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReliable annotation linking oligonucleotide probes to target genes is essential for functional biological analysis of microarray experiments. We used the IMAD, OligoRAP and sigReannot pipelines to update the annotation for the ARK-Genomics Chicken 20 K array as part of a joined EADGENE/SABRE workshop. In this manuscript we compare their annotation strategies and results. Furthermore, we analyse the effect of differences in updated annotation on functional analysis for an experiment involving Eimeria infected chickens and finally we propose guidelines for optimal annotation strategies.

resultsIMAD, OligoRAP and sigReannot update both annotation and estimated target specificity. The 3 pipelines can assign oligos to target specificity categories although with varying degrees of resolution. Target specificity is judged based on the amount and type of oligo versus target-gene alignments (hits), which are determined by filter thresholds that users can adjust based on their experimental conditions. Linking oligos to annotation on the other hand is based on rigid rules, which differ between pipelines.For 52.7% of the oligos from a subset selected for in depth comparison all pipelines linked to one or more Ensembl genes with consensus on 44.0%. In 31.0% of the cases none of the pipelines could assign an Ensembl gene to an oligo and for the remaining 16.3% the coverage differed between pipelines. Differences in updated annotation were mainly due to different thresholds for hybridisation potential filtering of oligo versus target-gene alignments and different policies for expanding annotation using indirect links. The differences in updated annotation packages had a significant effect on GO term enrichment analysis with consensus on only 67.2% of the enriched terms.

conclusionIn addition to flexible thresholds to determine target specificity, annotation tools should provide metadata describing the relationships between oligos and the annotation assigned to them. These relationships can then be used to judge the varying degrees of reliability allowing users to fine-tune the balance between reliability and coverage. This is important as it can have a significant effect on functional microarray analysis as exemplified by the lack of consensus on almost one third of the terms found with GO term enrichment analysis based on updated IMAD, OligoRAP or sigReannot annotation.

Identifiers

PMID19615109
PMCPMC2712739
OpenAlexW1967118134

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.