Literature DB >> 12209019

Comparison of different labeling methods for two-channel high-density microarray experiments.

Elisabetta Manduchi1, L Marie Scearce, John E Brestelli, Gregory R Grant, Klaus H Kaestner, Christian J Stoeckert.   

Abstract

In this report we evaluate three methods for labeling nucleic acids to be hybridized to a cDNA microarray: direct labeling, indirect amino-allyl labeling, and the dendrimer labeling method (Genisphere). The dendrimer method requires the smallest quantity of sample, 2.5 microg of total RNA compared with 20 microg with the direct or indirect methods. Therefore, we wanted to know whether the performance of the dendrimer method is comparable to the other methods, or whether significant information is lost. Performance can be considered in terms of sensitivity, dynamic range, and reproducibility of the quantitative signals for gene intensity. We compared the three labeling methods by generating three sets of eight self-to-self hybridizations using the same total RNA sample in all cases ("replicate study"). In our analysis, we controlled for the effects of print-tip and background subtraction biases. We also performed a smaller study, namely, a dilution series study with five dilution points per labeling method, to evaluate one aspect of predictive ability. From the replicate study, the dendrimer method appeared to perform as well, and often better, with respect to reproducibility and ability to detect expression. However, in the dilution series study, this method was outperformed by the other two in terms of predictive ability and did not perform very well. These findings are helping to guide our decisions on what labeling method to use for subsequent studies, based on the purpose of a specific study and its limitations in terms of available material.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12209019     DOI: 10.1152/physiolgenomics.00120.2001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Physiol Genomics        ISSN: 1094-8341            Impact factor:   3.107


  14 in total

1.  Single primer amplification (SPA) of cDNA for microarray expression analysis.

Authors:  Lee Smith; Peter Underhill; Clare Pritchard; Zuzanna Tymowska-Lalanne; Saba Abdul-Hussein; Helen Hilton; Laura Winchester; Deborah Williams; Tom Freeman; Sarah Webb; Andy Greenfield
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2003-02-01       Impact factor: 16.971

Review 2.  Interrogating mouse mammary cancer models: insights from gene expression profiling.

Authors:  Antonio A Fargiano; Kartiki V Desai; Jeffrey E Green
Journal:  J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 2.673

Review 3.  In control: systematic assessment of microarray performance.

Authors:  Harm van Bakel; Frank C P Holstege
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 8.807

4.  Influence of RNA labeling on expression profiling of microRNAs.

Authors:  John S Kaddis; Daniel H Wai; Jessica Bowers; Nicole Hartmann; Lukas Baeriswyl; Sheetal Bajaj; Michael J Anderson; Robert C Getts; Timothy J Triche
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2011-11-07       Impact factor: 5.568

Review 5.  DNA microarrays--techniques and applications in microbial systems.

Authors:  T Majtán; G Bukovská; J Timko
Journal:  Folia Microbiol (Praha)       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.099

6.  Comparison of RNA amplification techniques meeting the demands for the expression profiling of clinical cancer samples.

Authors:  Martin Lauss; Klemens Vierlinger; Andreas Weinhaeusel; Sandra Szameit; Klaus Kaserer; Christa Noehammer
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2007-10-31       Impact factor: 4.064

7.  Food microbial pathogen detection and analysis using DNA microarray technologies.

Authors:  Avraham Rasooly; Keith E Herold
Journal:  Foodborne Pathog Dis       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 3.171

8.  How to Group Genes according to Expression Profiles?

Authors:  Julio A Di Rienzo; Silvia G Valdano; Paula Fernández
Journal:  Int J Plant Genomics       Date:  2011-12-20

9.  Caenorhabditis elegans genomic response to soil bacteria predicts environment-specific genetic effects on life history traits.

Authors:  Joseph D Coolon; Kenneth L Jones; Timothy C Todd; Bryanua C Carr; Michael A Herman
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2009-06-05       Impact factor: 5.917

10.  Anti-oncogenic and pro-differentiation effects of clorgyline, a monoamine oxidase A inhibitor, on high grade prostate cancer cells.

Authors:  Hongjuan Zhao; Vincent Flamand; Donna M Peehl
Journal:  BMC Med Genomics       Date:  2009-08-20       Impact factor: 3.063

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.