Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38463169›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2024

Comparison of RNA-Seq and microarray in the prediction of protein expression and survival prediction.

Won-Ji Kim, Bo Ram Choi, Joseph J Noh, Yoo-Young Lee, Tae-Joong Kim, Jeong-Won Lee, Byoung-Gie Kim, Chel Hun Choi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. In Silico Analysis of Squamous Cell Carcinoma.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

8 authors.

Won-Ji Kim *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Bo Ram Choi *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Joseph J NohDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Yoo-Young LeeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Tae-Joong KimDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Jeong-Won LeeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Byoung-Gie KimDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Chel Hun ChoiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gene expression profiling using RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) and microarray technologies is widely used in cancer research to identify biomarkers for clinical endpoint prediction. We compared the performance of these two methods in predicting protein expression and clinical endpoints using The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) datasets of lung cancer, colorectal cancer, renal cancer, breast cancer, endometrial cancer, and ovarian cancer. We calculated the correlation coefficients between gene expression measured by RNA-seq or microarray and protein expression measured by reverse phase protein array (RPPA). In addition, after selecting the top 103 survival-related genes, we compared the random forest survival prediction model performance across test platforms and cancer types. Both RNA-seq and microarray data were retrieved from TCGA dataset. Most genes showed similar correlation coefficients between RNA-seq and microarray, but 16 genes exhibited significant differences between the two methods. The BAX gene was recurrently found in colorectal cancer, renal cancer, and ovarian cancer, and the PIK3CA gene belonged to renal cancer and breast cancer. Furthermore, the survival prediction model using microarray was better than the RNA-seq model in colorectal cancer, renal cancer, and lung cancer, but the RNA-seq model was better in ovarian and endometrial cancer. Our results showed good correlation between mRNA levels and protein measured by RPPA. While RNA-seq and microarray performance were similar, some genes showed differences, and further clinical significance should be evaluated. Additionally, our survival prediction model results were controversial.

Indexed as

biomarkersmicroarrayprotein expressionRNA-seqRPPATCGA

Identifiers

PMID38463169
PMCPMC10920353

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.