Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23375116›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2013

Intra-platform comparison of 25-mer and 60-mer oligonucleotide Nimblegen DNA microarrays.

Stephane Fenart, Malika Chabi, Sophie Gallina, Rudy Huis, Godfrey Neutelings, Nathalie Riviere, Brigitte Thomasset, Simon Hawkins, Anca Lucau-Danila

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 45% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Stephane FenartUniversité Lille Nord de France, Lille 1, UMR INRA 1281, SADV, F- 59650 Villeneuve d'Ascq cedex, France.
Malika Chabi
Sophie Gallina
Rudy Huis
Godfrey Neutelings
Nathalie Riviere
Brigitte Thomasset
Simon Hawkins
Anca Lucau-Danila
Université de Lille · FRUniversité Lille Nord de France · FRLaboratoire de Génétique & Evolution des Populations Végétales · FRLaboratoire de Géographie Physique et Environnementale · FRRoche (France) · FRUniversité de Technologie de Compiègne · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe performed a Nimblegen intra-platform microarray comparison by assessing two categories of flax target probes (short 25-mers oligonucleotides and long 60-mers oligonucleotides) in identical conditions of target production, design, labelling, hybridization, image analyses, and data filtering. We compared technical parameters of array hybridizations, precision and accuracy as well as specific gene expression profiles.

resultsComparison of the hybridization quality, precision and accuracy of expression measurements, as well as an interpretation of differential gene expression in flax tissues were performed. Both array types yielded reproducible, accurate and comparable data that are coherent for expression measurements and identification of differentially expressed genes. 60-mers arrays gave higher hybridization efficiencies and therefore were more sensitive allowing the detection of a higher number of unigenes involved in the same biological process and/or belonging to the same multigene family.

conclusionThe two flax arrays provide a good resolution of expressed functions; however the 60-mers arrays are more sensitive and provide a more in-depth coverage of candidate genes potentially involved in different biological processes.

Indexed as

Oligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisDNADNA ProbesNucleic Acid HybridizationReproducibility of ResultsDNADNA Probes

Identifiers

PMID23375116
PMCPMC3608165
OpenAlexW1965493324

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.