Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23236413›Full record

ArticlePloS one2012

Analyzing illumina gene expression microarray data from different tissues: methodological aspects of data analysis in the metaxpress consortium.

Claudia Schurmann, Katharina Heim, Arne Schillert, Stefan Blankenberg, Maren Carstensen, Marcus Dörr, Karlhans Endlich, Stephan B Felix, Christian Gieger, Harald Grallert and 21 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. DNA methylation of lipid-related genes affects blood lipid levels.Circulation. Cardiovascular genetics · 2015
    Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Article
  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

31 authors at 12 institutions in 1 country.

Claudia SchurmannInterfaculty Institute for Genetics and Functional Genomics, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-University Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Katharina Heim
Arne Schillert
Stefan Blankenberg
Maren Carstensen
Marcus Dörr
Karlhans Endlich
Stephan B Felix
Christian Gieger
Harald Grallert
Christian Herder
Wolfgang Hoffmann
Georg Homuth
Thomas Illig
Jochen Kruppa
Thomas Meitinger
Christian Müller
Matthias Nauck
Annette Peters
Rainer Rettig
Michael Roden
Konstantin Strauch
Uwe Völker
Henry Völzke
Simone Wahl
Henri Wallaschofski
Philipp S Wild
Tanja Zeller
Alexander Teumer
Holger Prokisch
Andreas Ziegler
Helmholtz Zentrum München · DEUniversitätsmedizin Greifswald · DEUniversität Greifswald · DEGerman Centre for Cardiovascular Research · DEUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf · DEHeinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · DEUniversity Hospital Schleswig-Holstein · DEBavarian Research Alliance · DEDeutsches Diabetes-Zentrum e.V. · DELudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEUniversity Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DEUniversity of Lübeck · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microarray profiling of gene expression is widely applied in molecular biology and functional genomics. Experimental and technical variations make meta-analysis of different studies challenging. In a total of 3358 samples, all from German population-based cohorts, we investigated the effect of data preprocessing and the variability due to sample processing in whole blood cell and blood monocyte gene expression data, measured on the Illumina HumanHT-12 v3 BeadChip array.Gene expression signal intensities were similar after applying the log(2) or the variance-stabilizing transformation. In all cohorts, the first principal component (PC) explained more than 95% of the total variation. Technical factors substantially influenced signal intensity values, especially the Illumina chip assignment (33-48% of the variance), the RNA amplification batch (12-24%), the RNA isolation batch (16%), and the sample storage time, in particular the time between blood donation and RNA isolation for the whole blood cell samples (2-3%), and the time between RNA isolation and amplification for the monocyte samples (2%). White blood cell composition parameters were the strongest biological factors influencing the expression signal intensities in the whole blood cell samples (3%), followed by sex (1-2%) in both sample types. Known single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were located in 38% of the analyzed probe sequences and 4% of them included common SNPs (minor allele frequency >5%). Out of the tested SNPs, 1.4% significantly modified the probe-specific expression signals (Bonferroni corrected p-value<0.05), but in almost half of these events the signal intensities were even increased despite the occurrence of the mismatch. Thus, the vast majority of SNPs within probes had no significant effect on hybridization efficiency.In summary, adjustment for a few selected technical factors greatly improved reliability of gene expression analyses. Such adjustments are particularly required for meta-analyses.

Indexed as

Gene ExpressionGene Expression ProfilingGermanyHumansOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisPolymorphism, Single NucleotideReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID23236413
PMCPMC3517598
OpenAlexW2017101446

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.