Literature DB >> 19426535

Multiplexed measurements of gene signatures in different analytes using the Nanostring nCounter Assay System.

Vladislav A Malkov1, Kyle A Serikawa, Noel Balantac, James Watters, Gary Geiss, Afshin Mashadi-Hossein, Thomas Fare.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We assessed NanoString's nCounter Analysis System for its ability to quantify gene expression of forty-eight genes in a single reaction with 100 ng of total RNA or an equivalent amount of tissue lysate. In the nCounter System, multiplexed gene expression target levels are directly detected, without enzymatic reactions, via two sequence-specific probes. The individual mRNA is captured with one mRNA target sequence-specific capture probe that is used in a post-hybridization affinity purification procedure. The second mRNA target specific-sequence and fluorescent-labeled colored coded probe is then used in the detection with the 3-component complex separated on a surface via an applied electric field followed by imaging. We evaluated reproducibility, accuracy, concordance with quantitative RT-PCR, linearity, dynamic range, and the ability of the system to assay different inputs (matched samples of total RNA from Flash Frozen (FF) and Formalin Fixed Paraffin Embedded Tissues (FFPET), and crude tissue lysates (CTL)).
FINDINGS: The nCounter Analysis System provided data equivalent to that produced by Taqman(R)-based assays for genes expressed within the ranges of the calibration curves (above ~0.5 mRNA copies per human cell based on an assumption of 10 pg of total RNA per cell). System response was linear over more than two orders of magnitude with typical CVs of ~6% for concentrations above 1 fM (105 molecules per mL). Profiling the industry-standard MAQC data set yielded correlation coefficients of >0.83 for intensity values and >0.99 for measured ratios. Ninety percent of nCounter ratio measurements were within 1.27-1.33 fold changes of the Taqman(R) data (0.34-0.41 in log2 scale) for FF total RNA samples.
CONCLUSION: The nCounter Analysis System generated robust data for multi-gene expression signatures across three different sample preparation conditions.

Entities:  

Year:  2009        PMID: 19426535      PMCID: PMC2688518          DOI: 10.1186/1756-0500-2-80

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Res Notes        ISSN: 1756-0500


Background

Analyses of gene expression from microarrays can be used to define a specific set of sequences (signatures) relevant to a particular biological phenomenon or response [1]. These signatures can comprise tens to hundreds of genes, a range that falls between the optimal economic and logistic space for two widely-used tools for measuring gene expression, RT-PCR and microarrays. A solution for follow-up would provide cost-effective, multiplexed measurements of gene expression for tens to hundreds of genes while producing data equivalent to that generated by microarrays and RT-PCR. This solution should also be able to analyze input materials of clinical relevance (e.g., total RNA from formalin-fixed, paraffin embedded tissues (FFPET) and crude tissue lysates (CTL)). As part of an internally funded investigation, Merck scientists tested the ability of the nCounter™ Analysis System [2] to meet this need via an experimental design (see Table 1) that featured both synthetic spike-in and "natural" total RNA for a set of 48 probes. Microarray Quality Consortium (MAQC) [3] total RNAs, total RNA from matched flash frozen (FF) and formalin fixed, paraffin embedded tissues, and CTL prepared from the same FF tissue were used as source materials for the assay. The work was contracted to Nanostring and the data analyzed at Merck.
Table 1

Experimental samples

Sample Type# of SamplesReplicated?Synthetic spike-ins added?Total # assayed
MAQC samples (Brain, UHR, and 25%:75% proportional mixes of each)4Yes (1×)Yes (?)8

Tissue Lysates10NoYes10

Flash frozen total RNA (4 xenografts at 4 different dosage conditions)16Yes (1×)Yes32

FFPET total RNA8NoYes8
Experimental samples

Methods

List of transcripts for the nCounter™ assay

The gene list for nCounter™ probes consisted of 14 human genes differentially regulated in our xenograft system, 25 human genes differentially regulated among the MAQC samples, and 9 sequences corresponding to synthetic transcripts used historically at Rosetta Inpharmatics as spike-ins for quality control (, Two-Color Microarray Spike-In Kit, part # 5188–5279, [4], Table 2). In addition, the nCounter™ Analysis System routinely includes spike-ins (cocktail #3 or #4,)[2]. These nCounter™ assay spike-in controls can be used for calibration and quality control purposes. For this work, the nCounter™ spike-in controls spanned 2.5 logs in concentration.
Table 2

Gene list for nCounter™ probe synthesis.

Gene/Gene SymbolRepresentative Transcript/Transcript IDTaqman probe ID (if used)
ASPANM_000049.2

BCL6NM_001706Hs00153368_m1

C11orf58NM_014267.3

CCNG2NM_004354Hs00171119_m1

CDH1NM_004360.2

CHGBNM_001819.1

CUGBP1NM_006560.2|NM_198700.1|NM_001025596.1Hs00198069_m1

DNAJB9NM_012328.1

DYNLL1NM_001037494.1|NM_001037495.1|NM_003746.2

H6PDNM_004285.3Hs00188728_m1

HBEGFNM_001945.1

HIST1H1DNM_005320.2

HKR2NM_181846.1Hs00419189_m1

ICAM1NM_000201.1

IRS2NM_003749Hs00275843_s1

ITM2BNM_021999.2

LDHANM_005566.1

LGI1NM_005097.1

MDS032NM_018467.2

MLLT7NM_005938Hs00172973_m1

MMP2NM_004530.2

MS4A6ANM_152852.1|NM_022349.2|NM_152851.1Hs00223521_m1

MXD4NM_006454Hs00170799_m1

MYCNM_002467Hs00153408_m1

NARG1NM_057175Hs00228208_m1

NIP7NM_016101Hs00602949_g1

NR0B2NM_021969.1

NTSNM_006183.3

PPARANM_001001928.2|NM_005036.4

RNF10NM_014868.3

SEPT2NM_001008491.1|NM_001008492.1|NM_006155.1|NM_004404.3

SFRS10NM_004593.1

SHCBP1NM_024745.2

SLC25A32NM_030780Hs00229219_m1

TAF1ANM_005681Hs00375858_m1

TFRCNM_003234.1

THBS1NM_003246.2

TMSL8NM_021992.2

TP53NM_000546.2

r60_1NA

r60_3NA

r60_a104NA

r60_a107NA

r60_a135NA

r60_a20NA

r60_a22NA

r60_a97NA

r60_n11NA

r60_n9NA
Gene list for nCounter™ probe synthesis.

Samples

Samples (see Table 1) for the assay came from two sources: 1) EBC-1 lung cancer cell line xenograft tissues treated with vehicle or varying amounts of a compound; and 2) MAQC samples obtained from Ambion (Human Brain) and Stratagene (Universal Human Reference). Proportional mixes (25%:75% and 75%:25% UHR to Brain) were created. Crude tissue lysates (CTLs) were made by homogenizing 50–100 mg of FF xenograft tissues in 1 mL of Qiagen buffer RLT and snap freezing a 100 μL aliquot (1/10th of total volume). Total RNA was purified from the remaining lysate using a Trizol-based protocol . We isolated RNA from FFPE EBC1 xenografts using the Ambion RecoverAll protocol . In all samples, one or the other set of Rosetta spike-ins were added to provide a measure of ratio accuracy. Samples were blinded before assaying at Nanostring Technologies, where the samples were processed to generate raw data (i.e. counts/gene). nCounter™ assay spike-ins control mixes #3 or #4 were added at random to each of the blinded RNA samples on the day the assay was performed.

The nCounter™ System assay

We performed the nCounter™ assay using 100 ng of total RNA or 2 μL of tissue lysate per replicate. Each assay was performed in triplicate to improve precision of the measurements. Details can be found in [2].

RT-PCR

Fourteen genes were assayed via a Taqman® quantitative RT-PCR protocol according to manufacturer's specifications using Applied Biosystem's High Capacity cDNA Reverse Transcription Kit (part # 4374967) and Taqman® Universal PCR Master Mix (part # 4364340). Taqman reporter probes were used (see Table 1 for a list of specific ABI assay identifiers). An aliquot of 400 ng of total RNA was reverse-transcribed and 1/80th of the reaction used for each replicate for each probe. The reaction volume for each replicate was 10 μL, with 0.5 μL of the Taqman 20× gene expression assay, 1 μL of sample, 5 μL of 2× Master Mix and 3.5 μL dH2O. All samples were assayed in quadruplicate for each probe according to Rosetta internal SOPs. Samples were run on an ABI 7900 HT system using the recommended ABI cycling protocol . See Table 2 for the specific Taqman® identifiers for the 14 probes used.

Data analysis

Eleven positive control nCounter™ spike-ins (spanning from 0.27 fM to 55 fM) were used to create the calibration curve for each nCounter™ array. Nine negative control spike-ins were used to assess the level of background (typically on the order of 10 counts). Mean of the negative controls was deducted from all other transcripts in the same assay prior to logarithmic transformation (log base 2). We used a standard linear regression model to find the least square fit of logarithm-transformed concentration on the logarithm-transformed number of molecules above background to generate the equation for the rest of the transcripts in the same assay. Each nCounter™ assay result was converted to an equivalent concentration using the assay standard curve. Use of the standard curve allows absolute measurements to be assigned to nCounter™ counts as needed. To deduce the precision of the nCounter™ assay itself, we mean centered the data in log2 scale, resulting in a correction of approximately 1.08 fold. To achieve specified precision, NanoString recommends running each sample (by experiment) in triplicate. To mimic a typical experiment, therefore, we averaged triplicate assays for Rosetta spike-ins as well. Standard deviations of resulting mean values were used to calculate CVs. To generate across-multiple-samples, gene-by-gene equivalency plots, both Taqman® and nCounter™ data were normalized to CUGBP1 as a reference gene for the xenograft samples. Originally four reference genes were identified from previous experiments as not varying significantly across our experimental conditions and were planned to be used as references in aggregate. However, three of the four did not reliably give signals above the lower limit of our standard curve and so were not used. This led us to deviate from generally accepted practice in which more than one reference gene is used to normalize data. In the MAQC analysis, although the published Taqman® data were normalized to POLR2A, the nCounter™ normalization did not utilize any reference genes. This is because POLR2A was not one of the genes present in our genelist and so was unavailable as a common control. As a result of this approach, Taqman® data were normalized to mRNA amount, while nCounter™ normalization relied on the same amount of total RNA (100 ng) in each sample. This distinction is important because the MAQC study showed that UHR has 1.5-fold higher mRNA content than Brain (3% vs. 2%). To compensate for different mRNA content, 0.585 Ct, 0.46 Ct and 0.17 Ct were deducted from all genes of 0% Brain/100% UHR; 25% Brain/75% UHR; and 75% Brian/25% UHR samples, respectively. For performance evaluations, a comparison was done for each possible pair of samples because we did not wish to artificially bias our data by arbitrarily assigning one sample as the "standard" to which other replicates would be compared. In these cases, we normalized to the mean of log intensity of the subset of genes in the corresponding sample for which measurements were above 0.27 fM in both samples of the pair. The same subset of genes was used to normalize Taqman®, using their mean Ct. Assessment of the Spike-in performance and of the MAQC samples can be found in Additional File 1, Additional File 2, Additional File 3, and Additional File 4, and in Tables 3 and 4. Data from the analysis can be found in Additional File 5.
Table 3

Expected and back-calculated (observed) concentrations in fmoles of Nanostring spike-in mixes 3 and 4, including %CV and %Bias.

Nanostring spike-in Mix #3Nanostring spike-in Mix #4
Spike NameExpectedObservedStdDwevCV, %Bias, %ExpectedObservedStdDevCV, %Bias, %

S235061.453.485.722.95059.453.636.118.9

S1453.360.288.532.953.240.319.535.2

S190.50.420.0717.216.50.50.450.0817.310.6

S853.190.247.536.2159.940.626.333.7

S131510.740.484.528.453.080.3110.038.5

S2254.720.306.35.55056.193.776.712.4

S75053.232.675.06.554.360.307.012.9

S171.52.410.2510.460.84.57.960.759.476.9

S34.55.40.336.019.91.51.620.1911.87.8

S60.250.310.0721.823.30.751.020.1312.835.7

S40.751.060.1312.141.50.250.380.0717.750.4

Calculations based on all replicates.

Table 4

Expected and observed concentrations for Rosetta spike-ins 11 and 12, including %CV and %Bias.

Rosetta spike-in #11
Transcript nameIntended conc, AUBest Fit ExpectedObservedStdDevCV, %Bias, %

r60_a20:50:rp10032.0928.621.475.210.8

r60_a22_rp103.214.710.285.946.9

r60_a104_rp103.212.620.145.218.5

r60_1_rp103.214.290.266.133.6

r60_a107_rp309.6310.560.706.69.7

r60_3_rp30.961.020.099.16.1

r60_a135_rp92.893.130.165.08.3

r60_a97_rp0.50.160.140.0321.815.5

r60_n11:30:rp1.50.480.340.0721.330.1

Rosetta spike-in #12

r60_a20:50:rp10044.1837.562.256.015.0

r60_a22_rp10044.1881.545.516.884.5

r60_a104_rp3013.2512.160.705.88.2

r60_1_rp104.425.850.305.132.3

r60_a107_rp104.424.490.368.01.6

r60_3_rp93.984.280.255.87.7

r60_a135_rp31.331.300.086.21.6

r60_a97_rp1.50.660.610.0711.37.9

r60_n11:30:rp0.50.220.120.0429.743.6

Calculations based on a per-sample basis.

Expected and back-calculated (observed) concentrations in fmoles of Nanostring spike-in mixes 3 and 4, including %CV and %Bias. Calculations based on all replicates. Expected and observed concentrations for Rosetta spike-ins 11 and 12, including %CV and %Bias. Calculations based on a per-sample basis.

Results and discussion

Analysis of Xenograft-derived Samples

The sample set comprised four treatment conditions with four mouse xenografts per condition for a total of 16 samples. The 16 tissue samples were split and preserved by three methods (FF, FFPET, and CTL in Qiagen buffer RLT); total RNA was isolated from FF and FFPET for RT-PCR analysis. Fourteen genes were chosen for Taqman® comparison using samples that were either vehicle treated or treated with the highest level of compound. Ten genes were expected to change either up or down, and four reference genes were expected to remain constant. The genes chosen for Taqman® and Nanostring comparisons were picked based on internal Merck criteria. The differential expression in a previous microarray study of these samples showed relatively modest fold changes (~2 fold) at the highest compound treatment level used for this study (data for other, intermediate treatment levels is not shown). A comparison of the compound and vehicle intensities between nCounter™ and Taqman® is shown in Figures 1, 2 and 3 for nine of the ten genes expected to change between treatments. Reference genes are not shown and one of the ten differentially expressed genes was not present at a sufficiently high level for accurate assessment. Figure 1 corresponds to FF tissue; Figure 2 to FFPET; and Figure 3 to CTL. In Figures 1, 2 and 3 only those points with expression levels within the calibration range are shown. The reference gene CUGBP1 was used to calculate the delta-delta CT for all genes.
Figure 1

Comparison of intensities derived from Taqman. The line in each case represents a slope of 1. Blue and black dots represent the two replicate measurements for each mouse sample. Only data points within the calibration curve are presented in these graphs. Units for the x-axis are delta CTs using CUGBP1 to normalize; units for the y-axis are log2 ratios of nCounter™ counts for a given gene and CUGPB1. Error bars represent standard deviations.

Figure 2

Comparison of intensities derived from Taqman. The line in each case represents a slope of 1. Only data points within the calibration curve are presented in these graphs. Units for the x-axis are delta CTs using CUGBP1 to normalize; units for the y-axis are log2 ratios of nCounter™ counts for a given gene and CUGPB1. Error bars represent standard deviations.

Figure 3

Comparison of intensities derived from Taqman. The line in each case represents a slope of 1. Only data points within the calibration curve are presented in these graphs. Units for the x-axis are delta CTs using CUGBP1 to normalize; units for the y-axis are log2 ratios of nCounter™ counts for a given gene and CUGPB1. Error bars represent standard deviations.

Comparison of intensities derived from Taqman. The line in each case represents a slope of 1. Blue and black dots represent the two replicate measurements for each mouse sample. Only data points within the calibration curve are presented in these graphs. Units for the x-axis are delta CTs using CUGBP1 to normalize; units for the y-axis are log2 ratios of nCounter™ counts for a given gene and CUGPB1. Error bars represent standard deviations. Comparison of intensities derived from Taqman. The line in each case represents a slope of 1. Only data points within the calibration curve are presented in these graphs. Units for the x-axis are delta CTs using CUGBP1 to normalize; units for the y-axis are log2 ratios of nCounter™ counts for a given gene and CUGPB1. Error bars represent standard deviations. Comparison of intensities derived from Taqman. The line in each case represents a slope of 1. Only data points within the calibration curve are presented in these graphs. Units for the x-axis are delta CTs using CUGBP1 to normalize; units for the y-axis are log2 ratios of nCounter™ counts for a given gene and CUGPB1. Error bars represent standard deviations. As with the MAQC data, these sample sets show generally good agreement between the two platforms. The one outlier is NARG1 (top right graph in each Figure), which was consistently discordant in all Taqman® to nCounter™ comparisons. Since the region of NARG1 assayed by the Taqman® probe is at the junction between exons 1 and 2 and the region selected for the nCounter™ probe is close to the 3' end of the transcript, the two systems may be capturing valid but different transcript behavior of this gene. It should be noted that variability of measurements in the CTL samples (as represented by the error bars) was higher than for the other two sample types. The FF and lysate data have a high degree of correlation, suggesting minor loss of data quality by using CTLs rather than purified total RNA. Taken together, the data in Figures 1, 2 and 3 suggest that the nCounter™ assay can be used to generate data from clinical samples with degraded RNA (FFPET, see Additional File 6 for representative quality) or from lysate preparations. It should be pointed out, however, that the FFPET model used (xenograft tissue) is not a perfect match for typical clinical samples and that not all degrees of degraded RNA will be amenable to this system

Performance metrics

To assess bias or compression in derived ratios, we plotted differences in ratios between nCounter™ and Taqman® versus average of ratios reported by both platforms (Figure 4). The scatter around the abscissa axis (y = 0) of differences suggests no bias in the measurement of ratios by nCounter™ relative to Taqman®, while the random scatter across degrees of differential expression (along the x-axis)implies no compression of ratios across ratio values.
Figure 4

Plot for ratio differences between nCounter™ and Taqman. The differences in ratio between Taqman® and nCounter™ for the MAQC and xenograft data sets were plotted versus average ratio of two platforms. Markers in blue represent ratios derived for xenograft samples; markers in green represent ratios derived for MAQC samples.

Plot for ratio differences between nCounter™ and Taqman. The differences in ratio between Taqman® and nCounter™ for the MAQC and xenograft data sets were plotted versus average ratio of two platforms. Markers in blue represent ratios derived for xenograft samples; markers in green represent ratios derived for MAQC samples. Figure 5 displays a set of cumulative distribution function (CDF) curves for ratios reported by the nCounter™ assay for the MAQC and the three xenograft datasets (FF, FFPET and CTL) versus the Taqman®-derived ratios from the FF samples. The absence of ratio compression simplifies the subsequent analysis: since the magnitude of the ratio does not affect the concordance between two platforms by this method, we can combine all measurements together and determine how many measurements were off and by how much. Rather than depend solely on one references gene, we performed a comparison of all possible sample pairs; systematic shifts affecting all genes in each comparison were thereby attributed to the difference in total mass and subtracted out. As expected, ratios measured by nCounter™ and Taqman® were similar for MAQC and FF xenograft samples. The MAQC samples showed slightly less deviation between Taqman® and the nCounter™ System, which may reflect the controlled nature of the sample set and the smaller fraction of very-low intensity genes (see Table 3 for CV dependence on transcripts abundance). Overall the differences are small–for example, 90% of all nCounter™ measurements were within 1.27 and 1.33 fold changes of the Taqman® calculated ratio for the MAQC and cell line FF data, respectively. Interestingly, nCounter™ data from the CTL samples more closely mirrored the Taqman® data than did the FFPET total RNA data. However, even ratios reported by nCounter™ FFPET samples are close to Taqman® ratios obtained for FF samples: 90% of ratios were within 1.55 fold.
Figure 5

Cumulative distribution function plots for difference between Taqman. Values on the x-axis are the absolute value of the difference between Taqman® and nCounter™ in log2 scale. The y-axis indicates the percentage of ratios which show a specific degree of difference between ratios or less.

Cumulative distribution function plots for difference between Taqman. Values on the x-axis are the absolute value of the difference between Taqman® and nCounter™ in log2 scale. The y-axis indicates the percentage of ratios which show a specific degree of difference between ratios or less. Our impetus to assess the nCounter™ Analysis System was driven by its relative simplicity (that is, no need for amplification steps), its multiplexed format, and its potential to measure gene expression in samples from pre-clinical and clinical settings (e.g, fine-needle biopsies in lysate buffers, and FFPET materials). Our results confirmed the system has potential for pre-clinical and clinical measurements of multiple gene signatures in settings where the initial tissue collection would be conducive to FFPET or CTL preparations. This platform could be used to fill an important and growing gap in drug development research. Microarray experiments routinely are used in basic research but often identify too many genes to allow higher-throughput downstream use of those signatures for screening or readouts. By allowing the cost effective and accurate measurement of expression of tens of genes from clinical samples, the nCounter™ system could facilitate translation of multi-gene expression based biomarkers into the clinic.

Competing interests

GG and AM-H are employees of Nanostring.

Authors' contributions

VM performed the data transformations and analysis; KS designed and initiated the experiments and assembled the sample set, and also was the primary author of the manuscript; NB performed the Taqman assays; JW provided the xenograft model system and the tissue samples used, and also provided critical review of experimental design; GG and AM-H processed the samples at Nanostring and provided technical and critical review of the manuscript; TF provided overall project guidance, technical and critical review of the experiments and assisted in writing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Additional file 1

Performance of Nanostring spike-ins. Nanostring spike-ins span a reported range from 0.25 fM to 50 fM. All samples were assayed in triplicate; data are broken down by replicate. nCounter™ spike-ins consisted of two parallel sets of the same RNAs made into two different cocktails (cocktails #3 and #4). Some RNAs are set at different concentrations between these cocktails while others are at the same concentration (Table 3). Click here for file

Additional file 2

Performance of Rosetta spike-ins. The Rosetta spike-ins were originally constructed to measure dynamic range, ratio fidelity, and hybridization quality of an in-house, two-color microarray system [4]. Data from the nCounter™ spike-in controls were used to derive the precision profile and to provide a calibration curve for quantitation of other RNA transcripts. Spike-ins curves showed good linearity and reproducibility, and good conservation of relative measurements. Overall, the precision of the platform for the Rosetta Spike-ins had CVs of approximately 6%, except for concentrations below 1.5 fM (CVs were 10–30%). Error bars represent standard deviations. Click here for file

Additional file 3

Comparison of intensity values derived from Taqman. Markers in red represent genes that were outside of the calibration curve. Pair-wise nCounter™ to Taqman® comparisons of measured expression levels of genes on a per sample basis showed correlation coefficients ranging from 0.835 to 0.886. Error bars represent standard deviations. Click here for file

Additional file 4

Comparison of calculated log. Transcripts that were outside the calibration curve are shown in red and are labeled with their lowest measured concentration in either Brain or UHR (in fM). In the comparison of ratios, data for nCounter™ and Taqman® were first corrected for the known differences in mRNA content between Brain and UHR (2% to 3%). Additional File 4 shows the fit of the ratio comparisons to the line y = x for samples whose intensity falls within the standard curve (blue squares in Additional File 4), R = 0.995, demonstrating good linear agreement between Taqman® and nCounter™ ratio measurements. Click here for file

Additional file 5

Data from Nanostring nCounter experiment. This spreadsheet contains the raw nCounter™ data, the Taqman® data used for comparisons, and the normalized and averaged nCounter™ data. Click here for file

Additional file 6

Representative Bioanalyzer traces from FFPE-derived RNA. These traces demonstrate the degree of RNA degradation assayed by the nCounter™ system in our experiments. Click here for file
  4 in total

1.  The MicroArray Quality Control (MAQC) project shows inter- and intraplatform reproducibility of gene expression measurements.

Authors:  Leming Shi; Laura H Reid; Wendell D Jones; Richard Shippy; Janet A Warrington; Shawn C Baker; Patrick J Collins; Francoise de Longueville; Ernest S Kawasaki; Kathleen Y Lee; Yuling Luo; Yongming Andrew Sun; James C Willey; Robert A Setterquist; Gavin M Fischer; Weida Tong; Yvonne P Dragan; David J Dix; Felix W Frueh; Frederico M Goodsaid; Damir Herman; Roderick V Jensen; Charles D Johnson; Edward K Lobenhofer; Raj K Puri; Uwe Schrf; Jean Thierry-Mieg; Charles Wang; Mike Wilson; Paul K Wolber; Lu Zhang; Shashi Amur; Wenjun Bao; Catalin C Barbacioru; Anne Bergstrom Lucas; Vincent Bertholet; Cecilie Boysen; Bud Bromley; Donna Brown; Alan Brunner; Roger Canales; Xiaoxi Megan Cao; Thomas A Cebula; James J Chen; Jing Cheng; Tzu-Ming Chu; Eugene Chudin; John Corson; J Christopher Corton; Lisa J Croner; Christopher Davies; Timothy S Davison; Glenda Delenstarr; Xutao Deng; David Dorris; Aron C Eklund; Xiao-hui Fan; Hong Fang; Stephanie Fulmer-Smentek; James C Fuscoe; Kathryn Gallagher; Weigong Ge; Lei Guo; Xu Guo; Janet Hager; Paul K Haje; Jing Han; Tao Han; Heather C Harbottle; Stephen C Harris; Eli Hatchwell; Craig A Hauser; Susan Hester; Huixiao Hong; Patrick Hurban; Scott A Jackson; Hanlee Ji; Charles R Knight; Winston P Kuo; J Eugene LeClerc; Shawn Levy; Quan-Zhen Li; Chunmei Liu; Ying Liu; Michael J Lombardi; Yunqing Ma; Scott R Magnuson; Botoul Maqsodi; Tim McDaniel; Nan Mei; Ola Myklebost; Baitang Ning; Natalia Novoradovskaya; Michael S Orr; Terry W Osborn; Adam Papallo; Tucker A Patterson; Roger G Perkins; Elizabeth H Peters; Ron Peterson; Kenneth L Philips; P Scott Pine; Lajos Pusztai; Feng Qian; Hongzu Ren; Mitch Rosen; Barry A Rosenzweig; Raymond R Samaha; Mark Schena; Gary P Schroth; Svetlana Shchegrova; Dave D Smith; Frank Staedtler; Zhenqiang Su; Hongmei Sun; Zoltan Szallasi; Zivana Tezak; Danielle Thierry-Mieg; Karol L Thompson; Irina Tikhonova; Yaron Turpaz; Beena Vallanat; Christophe Van; Stephen J Walker; Sue Jane Wang; Yonghong Wang; Russ Wolfinger; Alex Wong; Jie Wu; Chunlin Xiao; Qian Xie; Jun Xu; Wen Yang; Liang Zhang; Sheng Zhong; Yaping Zong; William Slikker
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 54.908

2.  Direct multiplexed measurement of gene expression with color-coded probe pairs.

Authors:  Gary K Geiss; Roger E Bumgarner; Brian Birditt; Timothy Dahl; Naeem Dowidar; Dwayne L Dunaway; H Perry Fell; Sean Ferree; Renee D George; Tammy Grogan; Jeffrey J James; Malini Maysuria; Jeffrey D Mitton; Paola Oliveri; Jennifer L Osborn; Tao Peng; Amber L Ratcliffe; Philippa J Webster; Eric H Davidson; Leroy Hood; Krassen Dimitrov
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2008-02-17       Impact factor: 54.908

3.  Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer.

Authors:  Laura J van 't Veer; Hongyue Dai; Marc J van de Vijver; Yudong D He; Augustinus A M Hart; Mao Mao; Hans L Peterse; Karin van der Kooy; Matthew J Marton; Anke T Witteveen; George J Schreiber; Ron M Kerkhoven; Chris Roberts; Peter S Linsley; René Bernards; Stephen H Friend
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2002-01-31       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Expression profiling using microarrays fabricated by an ink-jet oligonucleotide synthesizer.

Authors:  T R Hughes; M Mao; A R Jones; J Burchard; M J Marton; K W Shannon; S M Lefkowitz; M Ziman; J M Schelter; M R Meyer; S Kobayashi; C Davis; H Dai; Y D He; S B Stephaniants; G Cavet; W L Walker; A West; E Coffey; D D Shoemaker; R Stoughton; A P Blanchard; S H Friend; P S Linsley
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 54.908

  4 in total
  77 in total

Review 1.  Quality assurance of RNA expression profiling in clinical laboratories.

Authors:  Weihua Tang; Zhiyuan Hu; Hind Muallem; Margaret L Gulley
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2011-10-20       Impact factor: 5.568

2.  Gene Expression Profiling of Infecting Microbes Using a Digital Bar-coding Platform.

Authors:  Wenjie Xu; Norma V Solis; Scott G Filler; Aaron P Mitchell
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2016-01-13       Impact factor: 1.355

3.  Integrated Genomics Reveals Convergent Transcriptomic Networks Underlying Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis.

Authors:  Rebecca L Kusko; John F Brothers; John Tedrow; Kusum Pandit; Luai Huleihel; Catalina Perdomo; Gang Liu; Brenda Juan-Guardela; Daniel Kass; Sherry Zhang; Marc Lenburg; Fernando Martinez; John Quackenbush; Frank Sciurba; Andrew Limper; Mark Geraci; Ivana Yang; David A Schwartz; Jennifer Beane; Avrum Spira; Naftali Kaminski
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2016-10-15       Impact factor: 21.405

4.  Validation of a prognostic multi-gene signature in high-risk neuroblastoma using the high throughput digital NanoString nCounter™ system.

Authors:  Thomas P Stricker; Andres Morales La Madrid; Alexandre Chlenski; Lisa Guerrero; Helen R Salwen; Yasmin Gosiengfiao; Elizabeth J Perlman; Wayne Furman; Armita Bahrami; Jason M Shohet; Peter E Zage; M John Hicks; Hiroyuki Shimada; Rie Suganuma; Julie R Park; Sara So; Wendy B London; Peter Pytel; Kirsteen H Maclean; Susan L Cohn
Journal:  Mol Oncol       Date:  2014-01-31       Impact factor: 6.603

5.  Cytokinin acts through the auxin influx carrier AUX1 to regulate cell elongation in the root.

Authors:  Ian H Street; Dennis E Mathews; Maria V Yamburkenko; Ali Sorooshzadeh; Roshen T John; Ranjan Swarup; Malcolm J Bennett; Joseph J Kieber; G Eric Schaller
Journal:  Development       Date:  2016-10-03       Impact factor: 6.868

6.  Characterization of genes involved in cytokinin signaling and metabolism from rice.

Authors:  Yu-Chang Tsai; Nicholas R Weir; Kristine Hill; Wenjing Zhang; Hyo Jung Kim; Shin-Han Shiu; G Eric Schaller; Joseph J Kieber
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  2012-03-01       Impact factor: 8.340

7.  Clinical Application of Prognostic Gene Expression Signature in Fusion Gene-Negative Rhabdomyosarcoma: A Report from the Children's Oncology Group.

Authors:  Pooja Hingorani; Edoardo Missiaglia; Janet Shipley; James R Anderson; Timothy J Triche; Mauro Delorenzi; Julie Gastier-Foster; Michele Wing; Douglas S Hawkins; Stephen X Skapek
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2015-10-15       Impact factor: 12.531

8.  Pathogen Gene Expression Profiling During Infection Using a Nanostring nCounter Platform.

Authors:  Wenjie Xu; Norma V Solis; Scott G Filler; Aaron P Mitchell
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2016

9.  Identification of cytokinin-responsive genes using microarray meta-analysis and RNA-Seq in Arabidopsis.

Authors:  Apurva Bhargava; Ivory Clabaugh; Jenn P To; Bridey B Maxwell; Yi-Hsuan Chiang; G Eric Schaller; Ann Loraine; Joseph J Kieber
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  2013-03-22       Impact factor: 8.340

10.  Ascites analysis by a microfluidic chip allows tumor-cell profiling.

Authors:  Vanessa M Peterson; Cesar M Castro; Jaehoon Chung; Nathan C Miller; Adeeti V Ullal; Maria D Castano; Richard T Penson; Hakho Lee; Michael J Birrer; Ralph Weissleder
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-12-02       Impact factor: 11.205

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.