Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21548974›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2011

Assessing affymetrix GeneChip microarray quality.

Matthew N McCall, Peter N Murakami, Margus Lukk, Wolfgang Huber, Rafael A Irizarry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Matthew N McCallDepartment of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N, Wolfe St,, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Peter N Murakami
Margus Lukk
Wolfgang Huber
Rafael A Irizarry

Funding

Preprocessing and Analysis Tools for High-Throughput TechnologiesR01GM083084 · NIGMS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI IRIZARRY, RAFAEL ANGEL · 2007 to 2018
$4.4M
Software for the Statistical Analysis of Microarray Probe Level DataR01RR021967 · NCRR · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI IRIZARRY, RAFAEL ANGEL · 2007 to 2011
$1.2M
Predoctoral Biostatistics Training in Genetics/GenomicsT32GM074906 · NIGMS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI IRIZARRY, RAFAEL ANGEL · 2006 to 2010
$905k
Software for the statistical analysis of microarray probe level dataR01GM103552 · NIGMS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI IRIZARRY, RAFAEL ANGEL · 2012 to 2013
$735k
NCRR NIH HHS R01 RR021967NCRR NIH HHS RR021967NIGMS NIH HHS GM083084NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM083084NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM103552NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM074906NIGMS NIH HHS T32GM074906
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMicroarray technology has become a widely used tool in the biological sciences. Over the past decade, the number of users has grown exponentially, and with the number of applications and secondary data analyses rapidly increasing, we expect this rate to continue. Various initiatives such as the External RNA Control Consortium (ERCC) and the MicroArray Quality Control (MAQC) project have explored ways to provide standards for the technology. For microarrays to become generally accepted as a reliable technology, statistical methods for assessing quality will be an indispensable component; however, there remains a lack of consensus in both defining and measuring microarray quality.

resultsWe begin by providing a precise definition of microarray quality and reviewing existing Affymetrix GeneChip quality metrics in light of this definition. We show that the best-performing metrics require multiple arrays to be assessed simultaneously. While such multi-array quality metrics are adequate for bench science, as microarrays begin to be used in clinical settings, single-array quality metrics will be indispensable. To this end, we define a single-array version of one of the best multi-array quality metrics and show that this metric performs as well as the best multi-array metrics. We then use this new quality metric to assess the quality of microarry data available via the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) using more than 22,000 Affymetrix HGU133a and HGU133plus2 arrays from 809 studies.

conclusionsWe find that approximately 10 percent of these publicly available arrays are of poor quality. Moreover, the quality of microarray measurements varies greatly from hybridization to hybridization, study to study, and lab to lab, with some experiments producing unusable data. Many of the concepts described here are applicable to other high-throughput technologies.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsGene Expression ProfilingHumansOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisQuality ControlRNASequence Analysis, RNARNA

Identifiers

PMID21548974
PMCPMC3097162

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.