Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21627854›Full record

ReviewBMC biology2011

Microarrays, deep sequencing and the true measure of the transcriptome.

John H Malone, Brian Oliver

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in BMC biology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 241 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
241citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

241 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

181 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

John H MaloneLaboratory of Cellular and Developmental Biology, National Institute of Digestive, Diabetes, and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA. malonej@niddk.nih.gov
Brian Oliver

Funding

Drosophila Functional GenomicsZIADK015600 · NIDDK · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES · PI OLIVER, BRIAN · 2009 to 2025
$23.9M
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA DK015600
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microarrays first made the analysis of the transcriptome possible, and have produced much important information. Today, however, researchers are increasingly turning to direct high-throughput sequencing -- RNA-Seq -- which has considerable advantages for examining transcriptome fine structure -- for example in the detection of allele-specific expression and splice junctions. In this article, we discuss the relative merits of the two techniques, the inherent biases in each, and whether all of the vast body of array work needs to be revisited using the newer technology. We conclude that microarrays remain useful and accurate tools for measuring expression levels, and RNA-Seq complements and extends microarray measurements.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingAnimalsDrosophilaHumansOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisSequence Analysis, RNA

Identifiers

PMID21627854
PMCPMC3104486

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.