ArticlePloS one2022
BlotIt-Optimal alignment of Western blot and qPCR experiments.
Article in PloS one, 2022. 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.
- Development of apical membrane antigen-1 based ELISA kit for the diagnosis ofVeterinary research forum : an international quarterly journal · 2026Article
- Dynamic modelling of cell cycle arrest through integrated single-cell and mathematical modelling approaches.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Dopamine receptors of the rodent fastigial nucleus support skilled reaching for goal-directed action.Brain structure & function · 2024Article
- Basal MET phosphorylation is an indicator of hepatocyte dysregulation in liver disease.Molecular systems biology · 2024Article
- Article
- Strain-dependent regulation of hippocampal long-term potentiation by dopamine D1/D5 receptors in mice.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biological systems are frequently analyzed by means of mechanistic mathematical models. In order to infer model parameters and provide a useful model that can be employed for systems understanding and hypothesis testing, the model is often calibrated on quantitative, time-resolved data. To do so, it is typically important to compare experimental measurements over broad time ranges and various experimental conditions, e.g. perturbations of the biological system. However, most of the established experimental techniques such as Western blot, or quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction only provide measurements on a relative scale, since different sample volumes, experimental adjustments or varying development times of a gel lead to systematic shifts in the data. In turn, the number of measurements corresponding to the same scale enabling comparability is limited. Here, we present a new flexible method to align measurement data that obeys different scaling factors and compare it to existing normalization approaches. We propose an alignment model to estimate these scaling factors and provide the possibility to adapt this model depending on the measurement technique of interest. In addition, an error model can be specified to adequately weight the different data points and obtain scaling-model based confidence intervals of the finally scaled data points. Our approach is applicable to all sorts of relative measurements and does not need a particular experimental condition that has been measured over all available scales. An implementation of the method is provided with the R package blotIt including refined ways of visualization.
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.