| Literature DB >> 24973947 |
Pieter Mestdagh1, Nicole Hartmann2, Lukas Baeriswyl2, Ditte Andreasen3, Nathalie Bernard4, Caifu Chen4, David Cheo5, Petula D'Andrade6, Mike DeMayo7, Lucas Dennis8, Stefaan Derveaux9, Yun Feng5, Stephanie Fulmer-Smentek6, Bernhard Gerstmayer10, Julia Gouffon7, Chris Grimley8, Eric Lader11, Kathy Y Lee4, Shujun Luo12, Peter Mouritzen3, Aishwarya Narayanan13, Sunali Patel4, Sabine Peiffer10, Silvia Rüberg10, Gary Schroth12, Dave Schuster5, Jonathan M Shaffer11, Elliot J Shelton4, Scott Silveria9, Umberto Ulmanella4, Vamsi Veeramachaneni13, Frank Staedtler2, Thomas Peters2, Toumy Guettouche14, Linda Wong4, Jo Vandesompele1.
Abstract
MicroRNAs are important negative regulators of protein-coding gene expression and have been studied intensively over the past years. Several measurement platforms have been developed to determine relative miRNA abundance in biological samples using different technologies such as small RNA sequencing, reverse transcription-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) and (microarray) hybridization. In this study, we systematically compared 12 commercially available platforms for analysis of microRNA expression. We measured an identical set of 20 standardized positive and negative control samples, including human universal reference RNA, human brain RNA and titrations thereof, human serum samples and synthetic spikes from microRNA family members with varying homology. We developed robust quality metrics to objectively assess platform performance in terms of reproducibility, sensitivity, accuracy, specificity and concordance of differential expression. The results indicate that each method has its strengths and weaknesses, which help to guide informed selection of a quantitative microRNA gene expression platform for particular study goals.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24973947 DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.3014
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nat Methods ISSN: 1548-7091 Impact factor: 28.547