| Literature DB >> 17384733 |
Christopher K Tuggle1, Yanfang Wang, Oliver Couture.
Abstract
The past five years have seen a tremendous rise in porcine transcriptomic data. Available porcine Expressed Sequence Tags (ESTs) have expanded greatly, with over 623,000 ESTs deposited in Genbank. ESTs have been used to expand the pig-human comparative maps, but such data has also been used in many ways to understand pig gene expression. Several methods have been used to identify genes differentially expressed (DE) in specific tissues or cell types under different treatments. These include open screening methods such as suppression subtractive hybridization, differential display, serial analysis of gene expression, and EST sequence frequency, as well as closed methods that measure expression of a defined set of sequences such as hybridization to membrane arrays and microarrays. The use of microarrays to begin large-scale transcriptome analysis has been recently reported, using either specialized or broad-coverage arrays. This review covers published results using the above techniques in the pig, as well as unpublished data provided by the research community, and reports on unpublished Affymetrix data from our group. Published and unpublished bioinformatics efforts are discussed, including recent work by our group to integrate two broad-coverage microarray platforms. We conclude by predicting experiments that will become possible with new anticipated tools and data, including the porcine genome sequence. We emphasize that the need for bioinformatics infrastructure to efficiently store and analyze the expanding amounts of gene expression data is critical, and that this deficit has emerged as a limiting factor for acceleration of genomic understanding in the pig.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2007 PMID: 17384733 PMCID: PMC1802012 DOI: 10.7150/ijbs.3.132
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Biol Sci ISSN: 1449-2288 Impact factor: 6.580
Largest Expressed Sequence Tag Projects in Swine
| Institution | Contact Name | Contact information | ESTs Submitted# |
|---|---|---|---|
| USDA-ARS Meat Animal Research Center | Smith TPL | smith-at-email.marc.usda.gov | 197,149 |
| National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences (Japan) | Uenishi H | huenishi-at-affrc.go.jp | 137,092 |
| Roslin Institute (U.K.) | Anderson SI* | 56,364 | |
| University of Missouri-Columbia | Prather RS | porcine-at-rnet.missouri.edu | 37,806 |
| Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (France) | Tosser-Klopp G** | tosser-at-toulouse.inra.fr | 24,956 |
| Iowa State University | Tuggle CK | cktuggle-at-iastate.edu | 20,983 |
| Animal Technology Institute (Taiwan) | Lee W-C | wen-chuan-at-mail.atit.org.tw | 14,266 |
| USDA-Plum Island | Neilan JG | jneilan-at-piadc.ars.usda.gov | 14,240 |
| Oklahoma State University | DeSilva U | udaya.desilva-at-okstate.edu | 12,825 |
| Michigan State University | Ernst C** | ernstc-at-msu.edu | 12,804 |
| Nevada Department of Agriculture | Rink A | arink-at-govmail.state.nv.us | 11,556 |
| National Chung-Hsing University (Taiwan) | Huang M-C | mchuang-at-mail.nchu.edu.tw | 9,373 |
| University of Nebraska-Lincoln | Pomp D | dpomp-at-unc.edu | 5,414 |
| University of Minnesota | Murtaugh MP | murta001-at-umn.edu | 3,269 |
| Beijing Genomics Institute (PR China) | Hu S | husn-at-genomics.org.cn | 2,270 |
| STAFF-Institute (Japan) | Hamasima N | hamasima-at-gene.staff.or.jp | 2,155 |
| Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences | Bendixen C | Christian.Bendixen-at- agrsci.dk | 1,344 |
| Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University (Denmark) | Fredholm M | mf-at-kvl.dk | 1,326 |
| Royal School for Veterinary Studies (UK) | Hopwood PA | info-at-arkgenomics.org | 1,085 |
| Total ESTs submitted | 566,277 | ||
| # Submitters with >1,000 ESTs submitted from libraries with >250 ESTs; as of June 20, 2006 in Dana Farber Cancer Institute SsGI, Release 12.0 | |||
| *Other RI submitter contact: Archibald AL (alan.archibald-at-bbsrc.ac.uk) | |||
| **Other INRA submitter contact: Bonnet A (abonnet-at-toulouse.inra.fr) | |||
| ***Other MSU submitter contacts: Suchyta SP (suchytas-at-msu.edu) and Coussens P (coussens-at-msu.edu) | |||
Figure 1Gene Expression patterns can be clustered to identify pathways of genes acting in concert. To investigate the host transcriptional profile at early immune response stage during the ST infection, genes showing differential expression among all possible comparisons in the ST infection (p<0.01, fc>2, q<0.24) were used to perform the cluster analysis by the K-Medoids clustering method. A. 15 clusters which presented variable expression patterns were identified. The x axis is time points after infection (un-infected animals or 8h, 24h, 48h post-infection) and the y axis shows the normalized gene expression level. The green line in each cluster is the medoid value for expression in each cluster, the pattern representative of all genes in the cluster. B. Most of the genes in cluster 4 showed a slight down-regulation at 8 hpi, but were induced with peak response at 24 hpi during the ST infection. A majority of genes in this cluster are INFG and its induced genes, cytokines and chemokines, NFkB target genes, and other immune related genes. ST: Salmonella Typhimurium; PAM: Partitioning Around Medoids.
Figure 2The use of Blast analysis to match elements in the Porcine Affymetrix and Qiagen-Operon-NRSP8 Oligonucleotide array identifies six types of matches.
Results of Comparing Affymetrix Liver Transcriptome to Qiagen-Operon-NRSP8 Liver Transcriptome
| Pairing Class Description | Class Number | Number of Pairs | Number of Operon Probes | Number of Affymetrix Probe Sets | Percent Agreement of Pairs* | Correlation of Pairs** |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operon Singleton1 | 1 | − | 5,531 | − | − | − |
| Affymetrix Singleton2 | 2 | − | − | 16,417 | 97% (out of 13,386) | A1:A2: 0.95 |
| Single Operon to Single Affymetrix3 | 3 | 6,242 | 6,242 | 6,242 | 82% (out of 5,509) | O:A1: 0.62 O:A2: 0.55 A1:A2: 0.95 |
| Multiple Operon to Single Affymetrix4 | 4 | 983 | 983 | 476 | 89% (out of 907) | O:A1: 0.77 O:A2: 0.77 A1:A2: 0.97 |
| Multiple Affymetrix to Single Operon | 5 | 855 | 415 | 855 | 71% (out of 731) | O:A1: 0.62 O:A2: 0.55 A1:A2: 0.94 |
| Multiple of both | 6 | 237 | 126 | 133 | 84% (out of 215) | O:A1: 0.62 O:A2: 0.61 A1:A2: 0.97 |
| Total | − | 8,317 | 13,297 | 24,123 | 82% (out of 7,362) | O:A1: 0.72 O:A2: 0.71 A1:A2: 0.97 |
*For the Affymetrix GeneChip®, the MAS5 report had to agree at least 75% of the time for a probe set to be declared present or absent (all marginal calls were ignored). Hence for the first Affymetrix experiment five out of the six chips had to agree on the P/A calls, and for the second Affymetrix experiment three out of the four chips had to have the same P/A calls; leading to 7,362 of the pairings to be compared for their agreement.
**For the correlation, the mean values of the log normalized raw values were used for each probe within the pair. A Spearman's Rank correlation was then preformed on the means; comparing the Operon platform results to each of the two Affymetrix experiments.