Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24886304›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2014

Evaluation of high throughput gene expression platforms using a genomic biomarker signature for prediction of skin sensitization.

Andy Forreryd, Henrik Johansson, Ann-Sofie Albrekt, Malin Lindstedt

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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 · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Testing Human Skin and Respiratory Sensitizers-What Is Good Enough?International journal of molecular sciences · 2017
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

4 authors.

Andy Forreryd
Henrik Johansson
Ann-Sofie Albrekt
Malin LindstedtDepartment of Immunotechnology, Lund University Medicon, Village 406, Scheelevägen 2, 223 81 Lund, Sweden. Malin.lindstedt@immun.lth.se.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Nucleic Acid HybridizationOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionAllergensB7-2 AntigenBiomarkersCell Line, TumorDermatitis, Allergic ContactHumansPhenotypePrincipal Component AnalysisRNATranscriptomeAllergensB7-2 AntigenBiomarkersRNA

Identifiers

PMID24886304
PMCPMC4039750

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.