ArticleBMC genomics2013
Quality assessment and data handling methods for Affymetrix Gene 1.0 ST arrays with variable RNA integrity.
Article in BMC genomics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enterococcus hirae Y-HS Alleviates Ulcerative Colitis by Activating PXR/Nrf2-mediated Metabolic-immune Crosstalk.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2026Article
- Genetic characterization of primary and metastatic high-grade serous ovarian cancer tumors reveals distinct features associated with survival.Communications biology · 2023Article
- Dysregulation of lncRNA-miRNA-mRNA Interactome as a Marker of Metastatic Process in Ovarian Cancer.Biomedicines · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Sirtuin-3 probe quality and co-expressed genes using literature cohesion.BMC bioinformatics · 2019Article
- Transcriptomic profiles of tissues from rats treated with anticancer drug combinations.Scientific data · 2019Article
- Application of ribonucleoside vanadyl complex (RVC) for developing a multifunctional tissue preservative solution.PloS one · 2018Article
- Multicenter fresh frozen tissue sampling in colorectal cancer: does the quality meet the standards for state of the art biomarker research?Cell and tissue banking · 2017Article
- Activating transcription factor 3 is crucial for antitumor activity and to strengthen the antiviral properties of Onconase.Oncotarget · 2017Article
- Article
- Observational
- Brain derived neurotrophic factor contributes to the cardiogenic potential of adult resident progenitor cells in failing murine heart.PloS one · 2015Article
- Preserving biological heterogeneity with a permuted surrogate variable analysis for genomics batch correction.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRNA and microarray quality assessment form an integral part of gene expression analysis and, although methods such as the RNA integrity number (RIN) algorithm reliably asses RNA integrity, the relevance of RNA integrity in gene expression analysis as well as analysis methods to accommodate the possible effects of degradation requires further investigation. We investigated the relationship between RNA integrity and array quality on the commonly used Affymetrix Gene 1.0 ST array platform using reliable within-array and between-array quality assessment measures. The possibility of a transcript specific bias in the apparent effect of RNA degradation on the measured gene expression signal was evaluated after either excluding quality-flagged arrays or compensation for RNA degradation at different steps in the analysis.
resultsUsing probe-level and inter-array quality metrics to assess 34 Gene 1.0 ST array datasets derived from historical, paired tumour and normal primary colorectal cancer samples, 7 arrays (20.6%), with a mean sample RIN of 3.2 (SD = 0.42), were flagged during array quality assessment while 10 arrays from samples with RINs < 7 passed quality assessment, including one sample with a RIN < 3. We detected a transcript length bias in RNA degradation in only 5.8% of annotated transcript clusters (p-value 0.05, FC ≥ |2|), with longer and shorter than average transcripts under- and overrepresented in quality-flagged samples respectively. Applying compensatory measures for RNA degradation performed at least as well as excluding quality-flagged arrays, as judged by hierarchical clustering, gene expression analysis and Ingenuity Pathway Analysis; importantly, use of these compensatory measures had the significant benefit of enabling lower quality array data from irreplaceable clinical samples to be retained in downstream analyses.
conclusionsHere, we demonstrate an effective array-quality assessment strategy, which will allow the user to recognize lower quality arrays that can be included in the analysis once appropriate measures are applied to account for known or unknown sources of variation, such as array quality- and batch- effects, by implementing ComBat or Surrogate Variable Analysis. This approach of quality control and analysis will be especially useful for clinical samples with variable and low RNA qualities, with RIN scores ≥ 2.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.