Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24618910›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

A revised design for microarray experiments to account for experimental noise and uncertainty of probe response.

Alex E Pozhitkov, Peter A Noble, Jarosław Bryk, Diethard Tautz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Gene Meter: Accurate abundance calculations of gene expression.Communicative & integrative biology · 2017
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

4 authors.

Alex E PozhitkovMax-Planck-Institut für Evolutionsbiologie, Plön, Germany; Department of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Peter A NobleDepartment of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America; Ph.D Microbiology Program, Department of Biological Sciences, Alabama State University, Montgomery, Alabama, United States of America.
Jarosław BrykMax-Planck-Institut für Evolutionsbiologie, Plön, Germany; National Centre for Biotechnology Education, University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom.
Diethard TautzMax-Planck-Institut für Evolutionsbiologie, Plön, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough microarrays are analysis tools in biomedical research, they are known to yield noisy output that usually requires experimental confirmation. To tackle this problem, many studies have developed rules for optimizing probe design and devised complex statistical tools to analyze the output. However, less emphasis has been placed on systematically identifying the noise component as part of the experimental procedure. One source of noise is the variance in probe binding, which can be assessed by replicating array probes. The second source is poor probe performance, which can be assessed by calibrating the array based on a dilution series of target molecules. Using model experiments for copy number variation and gene expression measurements, we investigate here a revised design for microarray experiments that addresses both of these sources of variance.

resultsTwo custom arrays were used to evaluate the revised design: one based on 25 mer probes from an Affymetrix design and the other based on 60 mer probes from an Agilent design. To assess experimental variance in probe binding, all probes were replicated ten times. To assess probe performance, the probes were calibrated using a dilution series of target molecules and the signal response was fitted to an adsorption model. We found that significant variance of the signal could be controlled by averaging across probes and removing probes that are nonresponsive or poorly responsive in the calibration experiment. Taking this into account, one can obtain a more reliable signal with the added option of obtaining absolute rather than relative measurements.

conclusionThe assessment of technical variance within the experiments, combined with the calibration of probes allows to remove poorly responding probes and yields more reliable signals for the remaining ones. Once an array is properly calibrated, absolute quantification of signals becomes straight forward, alleviating the need for normalization and reference hybridizations.

Indexed as

AnimalsCalibrationDNA Copy Number VariationsGene Expression ProfilingMiceOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID24618910
PMCPMC3949741

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.