ArticleMolecular biology reports2013
Efficacy analysis of combining three comparative-omics profilings to screen candidate biological macromolecules.
Article in Molecular biology reports, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biometric Identification ofBiosensors · 2021Article
- Gene expression profile analysis in response to α1,2-fucosyl transferase (FUT1) gene transfection in epithelial ovarian carcinoma cells.Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the efficacy of integrated comparative omics in screening candidate biological macromolecules, three methods, namely, 2-DE + MALDI-TOF-MS, tumor-associated cDNA microarray and whole-transcriptome cDNA microarray were examined by three biotechnological companies to compare a stable transfected cell line with its control one. The results showed that the percentages of the up-regulate in three methods are largely consistent. 21.59 % of tumor-associated microarray results are the same with that of whole-transcriptome microarray. SOD2 is the unique intersection of three methods. Consulting the results of pI and Mw derived from microarray cannot increase the detection rate of target molecules during protein spot selection for mass spectrometry. Two protein spots with different regulating directions were identified to be the same protein. Conclusively, proteomic and genomic methods reveal the macromolecular changes from different aspects. Their detection ranges are complementary. The combination of different genomic methods can improve the validity and stability and reduce the noise changes. However, it is no sense to compare proteomics with genomics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23076535What 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.