ArticleBMC genomics2014
Evaluation of high throughput gene expression platforms using a genomic biomarker signature for prediction of skin sensitization.
Article in BMC genomics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Development and Validation of a Parsimonious Tuberculosis Gene Signature Using the digital NanoString nCounter Platform.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2022Article
- Diapause vs. reproductive programs: transcriptional phenotypes in a keystone copepod.Communications biology · 2021Article
- Optimization of small-scale sample preparation for high-throughput OpenArray analysis.Journal of biological methods · 2021Article
- Validation of the GARD™skin Assay for Assessment of Chemical Skin Sensitizers: Ring Trial Results of Predictive Performance and Reproducibility.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2019Article
- The next generation of population-based spinal muscular atrophy carrier screening: comprehensive pan-ethnic SMN1 copy-number and sequence variant analysis by massively parallel sequencing.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2017Article
- Testing Human Skin and Respiratory Sensitizers-What Is Good Enough?International journal of molecular sciences · 2017Review
- Beryllium-induced lung disease exhibits expression profiles similar to sarcoidosis.The European respiratory journal · 2016Article
- Immunology in wild nonmodel rodents: an ecological context for studies of health and disease.Parasite immunology · 2015Review
- Intersection of toxicogenomics and high throughput screening in the Tox21 program: an NIEHS perspective.International journal of biotechnologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAllergic contact dermatitis (ACD) develops upon exposure to certain chemical compounds termed skin sensitizers. To reduce the occurrence of skin sensitizers, chemicals are regularly screened for their capacity to induce sensitization. The recently developed Genomic Allergen Rapid Detection (GARD) assay is an in vitro alternative to animal testing for identification of skin sensitizers, classifying chemicals by evaluating transcriptional levels of a genomic biomarker signature. During assay development and biomarker identification, genome-wide expression analysis was applied using microarrays covering approximately 30,000 transcripts. However, the microarray platform suffers from drawbacks in terms of low sample throughput, high cost per sample and time consuming protocols and is a limiting factor for adaption of GARD into a routine assay for screening of potential sensitizers. With the purpose to simplify assay procedures, improve technical parameters and increase sample throughput, we assessed the performance of three high throughput gene expression platforms--nCounter®, BioMark HD™ and OpenArray®--and correlated their performance metrics against our previously generated microarray data. We measured the levels of 30 transcripts from the GARD biomarker signature across 48 samples. Detection sensitivity, reproducibility, correlations and overall structure of gene expression measurements were compared across platforms.
resultsGene expression data from all of the evaluated platforms could be used to classify most of the sensitizers from non-sensitizers in the GARD assay. Results also showed high data quality and acceptable reproducibility for all platforms but only medium to poor correlations of expression measurements across platforms. In addition, evaluated platforms were superior to the microarray platform in terms of cost efficiency, simplicity of protocols and sample throughput.
conclusionsWe evaluated the performance of three non-array based platforms using a limited set of transcripts from the GARD biomarker signature. We demonstrated that it was possible to achieve acceptable discriminatory power in terms of separation between sensitizers and non-sensitizers in the GARD assay while reducing assay costs, simplify assay procedures and increase sample throughput by using an alternative platform, providing a first step towards the goal to prepare GARD for formal validation and adaption of the assay for industrial screening of potential sensitizers.
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.