ArticlePloS one2014
A range finding protocol to support design for transcriptomics experimentation: examples of in-vitro and in-vivo murine UV exposure.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantitative assessment of sensitizing potency using a dose-response adaptation of GARDskin.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Article
- Cooperative interaction among BMAL1, HSF1, and p53 protects mammalian cells from UV stress.Communications biology · 2018Article
- Article
- Valuable lessons-learned in transcriptomics experimentation.Transcription · 2015Review
- Skin Carcinogenesis Studies Using Mouse Models with Altered Polyamines.Cancer growth and metastasis · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In transcriptomics research, design for experimentation by carefully considering biological, technological, practical and statistical aspects is very important, because the experimental design space is essentially limitless. Usually, the ranges of variable biological parameters of the design space are based on common practices and in turn on phenotypic endpoints. However, specific sub-cellular processes might only be partially reflected by phenotypic endpoints or outside the associated parameter range. Here, we provide a generic protocol for range finding in design for transcriptomics experimentation based on small-scale gene-expression experiments to help in the search for the right location in the design space by analyzing the activity of already known genes of relevant molecular mechanisms. Two examples illustrate the applicability: in-vitro UV-C exposure of mouse embryonic fibroblasts and in-vivo UV-B exposure of mouse skin. Our pragmatic approach is based on: framing a specific biological question and associated gene-set, performing a wide-ranged experiment without replication, eliminating potentially non-relevant genes, and determining the experimental 'sweet spot' by gene-set enrichment plus dose-response correlation analysis. Examination of many cellular processes that are related to UV response, such as DNA repair and cell-cycle arrest, revealed that basically each cellular (sub-) process is active at its own specific spot(s) in the experimental design space. Hence, the use of range finding, based on an affordable protocol like this, enables researchers to conveniently identify the 'sweet spot' for their cellular process of interest in an experimental design space and might have far-reaching implications for experimental standardization.
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.