ArticleBMC genomics2009
A comparative analysis of DNA barcode microarray feature size.
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 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Barcode sequencing: a robust, platform-agnostic method for massively parallel cell-based screens.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2025Article
- Cyclic microchip assay for measurement of hundreds of functional proteins in single neurons.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Optimization of a microarray for fission yeast.Genomics & informatics · 2019Article
- Miniature short hairpin RNA screens to characterize antiproliferative drugs.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2013Article
- Partitioning transcript variation in Drosophila: abundance, isoforms, and alleles.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2011Article
- Ccr4 promotes resolution of the endoplasmic reticulum stress response during host temperature adaptation in Cryptococcus neoformans.Eukaryotic cell · 2011Article
- A comprehensive platform for highly multiplexed mammalian functional genetic screens.BMC genomics · 2011Article
- Functional toxicogenomics: mechanism-centered toxicology.International journal of molecular sciences · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMicroarrays are an invaluable tool in many modern genomic studies. It is generally perceived that decreasing the size of microarray features leads to arrays with higher resolution (due to greater feature density), but this increase in resolution can compromise sensitivity.
resultsWe demonstrate that barcode microarrays with smaller features are equally capable of detecting variation in DNA barcode intensity when compared to larger feature sizes within a specific microarray platform. The barcodes used in this study are the well-characterized set derived from the Yeast KnockOut (YKO) collection used for screens of pooled yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) deletion mutants. We treated these pools with the glycosylation inhibitor tunicamycin as a test compound. Three generations of barcode microarrays at 30, 8 and 5 microm features sizes independently identified the primary target of tunicamycin to be ALG7.
conclusionWe show that the data obtained with 5 microm feature size is of comparable quality to the 30 microm size and propose that further shrinking of features could yield barcode microarrays with equal or greater resolving power and, more importantly, higher density.
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.