V Bogner1, W Mutschler. 1. Klinik für Allgemeine, Unfall-, Hand- und Plastische Chirurgie, Ludwig Maximilians Universität München, Campus Innenstadt, Nussbaumstraße 20, 80336, München, Deutschland, Viktoria.Bogner@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The traditional hypothesis-driven scientific approach cannot so far sufficiently elucidate complex pathophysiologies, such as posttraumatic systemic inflammation and subsequent multiple organ failure. This complex system includes different biological and functional levels, the genome, the transcriptome, the proteome, the biome (cells), the organs and finally the whole organism. METHODS: Microarray techniques enable a simultaneous search for these different biological levels and their functional relationships on a large scale and to discover new functional pathways and networks and potentially new biomarkers for different pathologies. Microarray technologies lead to a new paradigm in science, the hypothesis-generating approach. AIM: This article reviews important microarray findings in trauma and systemic inflammation research and discusses potentials and limitations of these biotechnological screening methods.
BACKGROUND: The traditional hypothesis-driven scientific approach cannot so far sufficiently elucidate complex pathophysiologies, such as posttraumatic systemic inflammation and subsequent multiple organ failure. This complex system includes different biological and functional levels, the genome, the transcriptome, the proteome, the biome (cells), the organs and finally the whole organism. METHODS: Microarray techniques enable a simultaneous search for these different biological levels and their functional relationships on a large scale and to discover new functional pathways and networks and potentially new biomarkers for different pathologies. Microarray technologies lead to a new paradigm in science, the hypothesis-generating approach. AIM: This article reviews important microarray findings in trauma and systemic inflammation research and discusses potentials and limitations of these biotechnological screening methods.
Authors: Peter Biberthaler; Ulrich Linsenmeier; Klaus-Juergen Pfeifer; Michael Kroetz; Thomas Mussack; Karl-Georg Kanz; Eduard F J Hoecherl; Felix Jonas; Ingo Marzi; Phillip Leucht; Marianne Jochum; Wolf Mutschler Journal: Shock Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 3.454
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
Authors: Alex G Cuenca; Lori F Gentile; M Cecilia Lopez; Ricardo Ungaro; Huazhi Liu; Wenzhong Xiao; Junhee Seok; Michael N Mindrinos; Darwin Ang; Tezcan Ozrazgat Baslanti; Azra Bihorac; Philip A Efron; Joseph Cuschieri; H Shaw Warren; Ronald G Tompkins; Ronald V Maier; Henry V Baker; Lyle L Moldawer Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 7.598