Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20230623›Full record

ArticlePlant methods2010

Statistical evaluation of transcriptomic data generated using the Affymetrix one-cycle, two-cycle and IVT-Express RNA labelling protocols with the Arabidopsis ATH1 microarray.

Tara J Holman, Michael H Wilson, Kim Kenobi, Ian L Dryden, T Charlie Hodgman, Andrew Ta Wood, Michael J Holdsworth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plant methods, 2010. 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
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Recovering the dynamics of root growth and development using novel image acquisition and analysis methods.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2012
    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

7 authors.

Tara J Holman *Centre for Plant Integrative Biology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, LE12 5RD, UK.
Michael H Wilson *Centre for Plant Integrative Biology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, LE12 5RD, UK.
Kim Kenobi *Centre for Plant Integrative Biology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, LE12 5RD, UK.
Ian L DrydenCentre for Plant Integrative Biology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, LE12 5RD, UK.
T Charlie HodgmanCentre for Plant Integrative Biology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, LE12 5RD, UK.
Andrew Ta WoodCentre for Plant Integrative Biology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, LE12 5RD, UK.
Michael J HoldsworthCentre for Plant Integrative Biology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, LE12 5RD, UK.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/D019613/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMicroarrays are a powerful tool used for the determination of global RNA expression. There is an increasing requirement to focus on profiling gene expression in tissues where it is difficult to obtain large quantities of material, for example individual tissues within organs such as the root, or individual isolated cells. From such samples, it is difficult to produce the amount of RNA required for labelling and hybridisation in microarray experiments, thus a process of amplification is usually adopted. Despite the increasing use of two-cycle amplification for transcriptomic analyses on the Affymetrix ATH1 array, there has been no report investigating any potential bias in gene representation that may occur as a result.

resultsHere we compare transcriptomic data generated using Affymetrix one-cycle (standard labelling protocol), two-cycle (small-sample protocol) and IVT-Express protocols with the Affymetrix ATH1 array using Arabidopsis root samples. Results obtained with each protocol are broadly similar. However, we show that there are 35 probe sets (of a total of 22810) that are misrepresented in the two-cycle data sets. Of these, 33 probe sets were classed as mis-amplified when comparisons of two independent publicly available data sets were undertaken.

conclusionsGiven the unreliable nature of the highlighted probes, we caution against using data associated with the corresponding genes in analyses involving transcriptomic data generated with two-cycle amplification protocols. We have shown that the Affymetrix IVT-E labelling protocol produces data with less associated bias than the two-cycle protocol, and as such, would recommend this kit for new experiments that involve small samples.

Identifiers

PMID20230623
PMCPMC2847557

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.