Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27335807›Full record

ArticleBiomolecular detection and quantification2016

An international comparability study on quantification of mRNA gene expression ratios: CCQM-P103.1.

Alison S Devonshire, Rebecca Sanders, Alexandra S Whale, Gavin J Nixon, Simon Cowen, Stephen L R Ellison, Helen Parkes, P Scott Pine, Marc Salit, Jennifer McDaniel and 34 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomolecular detection and quantification, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Reliable biological and multi-omics research through biometrology.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2024
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Improving the standardization of mRNA measurement by RT-qPCR.Biomolecular detection and quantification · 2018
    Article
  11. 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

44 authors at 11 institutions in 10 countries.

Alison S DevonshireLGC, Teddington, United Kingdom.
Rebecca SandersLGC, Teddington, United Kingdom.
Alexandra S WhaleLGC, Teddington, United Kingdom.
Gavin J NixonLGC, Teddington, United Kingdom.
Simon CowenLGC, Teddington, United Kingdom.
Stephen L R EllisonLGC, Teddington, United Kingdom.
Helen ParkesLGC, Teddington, United Kingdom.
P Scott PineNational Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Gaithersburg, USA.
Marc SalitNational Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Gaithersburg, USA.
Jennifer McDanielNational Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Gaithersburg, USA.
Sarah MunroNational Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Gaithersburg, USA.
Steve LundNational Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Gaithersburg, USA.
Satoko MatsukuraBiomedical Research Institute, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Ibaraki, Japan.
Yuji SekiguchiBiomedical Research Institute, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Ibaraki, Japan.
Mamoru KawaharasakiBiomedical Research Institute, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Ibaraki, Japan; National Metrology Institute of Japan (NMIJ), Ibaraki, Japan.
José Mauro GranjeiroNational Institute of Metrology, Quality and Technology (INMETRO), Duque de Caxias, Brazil.
Priscila Falagan-LotschNational Institute of Metrology, Quality and Technology (INMETRO), Duque de Caxias, Brazil.
Antonio Marcos SaraivaNational Institute of Metrology, Quality and Technology (INMETRO), Duque de Caxias, Brazil.
Paulo CoutoNational Institute of Metrology, Quality and Technology (INMETRO), Duque de Caxias, Brazil.
Inchul YangKorea Research Institute of Standards and Science (KRISS), Daejeon, Republic of Korea.
Hyerim KwonKorea Research Institute of Standards and Science (KRISS), Daejeon, Republic of Korea.
Sang-Ryoul ParkKorea Research Institute of Standards and Science (KRISS), Daejeon, Republic of Korea.
Tina DemšarNational Institute of Biology (NIB), Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Jana ŽelNational Institute of Biology (NIB), Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Andrej BlejecNational Institute of Biology (NIB), Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Mojca MilavecNational Institute of Biology (NIB), Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Lianhua DongNational Institute of Metrology (NIM), Beijing, PR China.
Ling ZhangNational Institute of Metrology (NIM), Beijing, PR China.
Zhiwei SuiNational Institute of Metrology (NIM), Beijing, PR China.
Jing WangNational Institute of Metrology (NIM), Beijing, PR China.
Duangkamol ViroonudompholNational Institute of Metrology Thailand (NIMT), Pathumthani, 12120, Thailand.
Chaiwat PrawettongsoponNational Institute of Metrology Thailand (NIMT), Pathumthani, 12120, Thailand.
Lina PartisNational Measurement Institute Australia (NMIA), Lindfield, Australia.
Anna BaoutinaNational Measurement Institute Australia (NMIA), Lindfield, Australia.
Kerry EmslieNational Measurement Institute Australia (NMIA), Lindfield, Australia.
Akiko TakatsuNational Metrology Institute of Japan (NMIJ), Ibaraki, Japan.
Sema AkyurekTÜBİTAK Ulusal Metroloji Enstitüsü (UME), Kocaeli, Turkey.
Muslum AkgozTÜBİTAK Ulusal Metroloji Enstitüsü (UME), Kocaeli, Turkey.
Maxim VonskyD.I. Mendeleev Institute for Metrology (VNIIM), St. Petersburg, Russian Federation; Institute of Cytology RAS, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation.
L A KonopelkoD.I. Mendeleev Institute for Metrology (VNIIM), St. Petersburg, Russian Federation.
Edna Matus CundapiCentro Nacional de Metrologia (CENAM), Querétaro, Mexico.
Melina Pérez UrquizaCentro Nacional de Metrologia (CENAM), Querétaro, Mexico.
Jim F HuggettLGC, Teddington, United Kingdom.
Carole A FoyLGC, Teddington, United Kingdom.
Teddington Memorial Hospital · GBInstituto Nacional de Metrologia, Qualidade e Tecnologia · BRNational Institute of Standards and Technology · USNational Institute of Biology · SINational Institute of Metrology · CNKorea Research Institute of Standards and Science · KRNational Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology · JPNational Measurement Institute · AUNational Metrology CenterD.I. Mendeleyev All-Russian Institute for Metrology · RUTübitak National Metrology Institute · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Measurement of RNA can be used to study and monitor a range of infectious and non-communicable diseases, with profiling of multiple gene expression mRNA transcripts being increasingly applied to cancer stratification and prognosis. An international comparison study (Consultative Committee for Amount of Substance (CCQM)-P103.1) was performed in order to evaluate the comparability of measurements of RNA copy number ratio for multiple gene targets between two samples. Six exogenous synthetic targets comprising of External RNA Control Consortium (ERCC) standards were measured alongside transcripts for three endogenous gene targets present in the background of human cell line RNA. The study was carried out under the auspices of the Nucleic Acids (formerly Bioanalysis) Working Group of the CCQM. It was coordinated by LGC (United Kingdom) with the support of National Institute of Standards and Technology (USA) and results were submitted from thirteen National Metrology Institutes and Designated Institutes. The majority of laboratories performed RNA measurements using RT-qPCR, with datasets also being submitted by two laboratories based on reverse transcription digital polymerase chain reaction and one laboratory using a next-generation sequencing method. In RT-qPCR analysis, the RNA copy number ratios between the two samples were quantified using either a standard curve or a relative quantification approach. In general, good agreement was observed between the reported results of ERCC RNA copy number ratio measurements. Measurements of the RNA copy number ratios for endogenous genes between the two samples were also consistent between the majority of laboratories. Some differences in the reported values and confidence intervals ('measurement uncertainties') were noted which may be attributable to choice of measurement method or quantification approach. This highlights the need for standardised practices for the calculation of fold change ratios and uncertainties in the area of gene expression profiling.

Indexed as

Biomarker identification and validationCancerDiagnosticsGene expressionMolecular diagnosticNormalisationRNA copy number ratioRT-qPCRStandardisationTranscriptomics

Identifiers

PMID27335807
PMCPMC4906133
OpenAlexW2417460855

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.