Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25412710›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2014

Transfer of clinically relevant gene expression signatures in breast cancer: from Affymetrix microarray to Illumina RNA-Sequencing technology.

Debora Fumagalli, Alexis Blanchet-Cohen, David Brown, Christine Desmedt, David Gacquer, Stefan Michiels, Françoise Rothé, Samira Majjaj, Roberto Salgado, Denis Larsimont and 6 more

Abstract read
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 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

16 authors.

Debora Fumagalli
Alexis Blanchet-Cohen
David Brown
Christine Desmedt
David Gacquer
Stefan Michiels
Françoise Rothé
Samira Majjaj
Roberto Salgado
Denis Larsimont
Michail Ignatiadis
Marion Maetens
Martine Piccart
Vincent Detours
Christos SotiriouBreast Cancer Translational Research Laboratory (BCTL), Institut Jules Bordet, Brussels, Belgium. christos.sotiriou@bordet.be.
Benjamin Haibe-Kains

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMicroarrays have revolutionized breast cancer (BC) research by enabling studies of gene expression on a transcriptome-wide scale. Recently, RNA-Sequencing (RNA-Seq) has emerged as an alternative for precise readouts of the transcriptome. To date, no study has compared the ability of the two technologies to quantify clinically relevant individual genes and microarray-derived gene expression signatures (GES) in a set of BC samples encompassing the known molecular BC's subtypes. To accomplish this, the RNA from 57 BCs representing the four main molecular subtypes (triple negative, HER2 positive, luminal A, luminal B), was profiled with Affymetrix HG-U133 Plus 2.0 chips and sequenced using the Illumina HiSeq 2000 platform. The correlations of three clinically relevant BC genes, six molecular subtype classifiers, and a selection of 21 GES were evaluated.

results16,097 genes common to the two platforms were retained for downstream analysis. Gene-wise comparison of microarray and RNA-Seq data revealed that 52% had a Spearman's correlation coefficient greater than 0.7 with highly correlated genes displaying significantly higher expression levels. We found excellent correlation between microarray and RNA-Seq for the estrogen receptor (ER; rs = 0.973; 95% CI: 0.971-0.975), progesterone receptor (PgR; rs = 0.95; 0.947-0.954), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2; rs = 0.918; 0.912-0.923), while a few discordances between ER and PgR quantified by immunohistochemistry and RNA-Seq/microarray were observed. All the subtype classifiers evaluated agreed well (Cohen's kappa coefficients >0.8) and all the proliferation-based GES showed excellent Spearman correlations between microarray and RNA-Seq (all rs >0.965). Immune-, stroma- and pathway-based GES showed a lower correlation relative to prognostic signatures (all rs >0.6).

conclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first study to report a systematic comparison of RNA-Seq to microarray for the evaluation of single genes and GES clinically relevant to BC. According to our results, the vast majority of single gene biomarkers and well-established GES can be reliably evaluated using the RNA-Seq technology.

Indexed as

Gene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingBase SequenceErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesEstrogen Receptor alphaFemaleHumansNeoplasm ProteinsOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisPrognosisReceptors, ProgesteroneTranscriptomeTriple Negative Breast NeoplasmsERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesESR1 protein, humanEstrogen Receptor alphaNeoplasm ProteinsReceptors, Progesterone

Identifiers

PMID25412710
PMCPMC4289354

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.