JMD ASIP MEMBERSHIP
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplemental Material
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ma, C.
Right arrow Articles by Monzon, F. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ma, C.
Right arrow Articles by Monzon, F. A.
JMD 2006, Vol. 8, No. 2
Copyright © 2006 American Society for Investigative Pathology & Association for Molecular Pathology

In Vitro Transcription Amplification and Labeling Methods Contribute to the Variability of Gene Expression Profiling with DNA Microarrays

Changqing Ma*{dagger}, Maureen Lyons-Weiler*, Wenjing Liang*, William LaFramboise*, John R. Gilbertson*{dagger}, Michael J. Becich*,{dagger} and Federico A. Monzon*{dagger}

From the Department of Pathology * and Center for Pathology Informatics, {dagger} University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

The effect of different amplification and labeling methods on DNA microarray expression results has not been previously delineated. To analyze the variation associated with widely accepted T7-based RNA amplificationand labeling methods, aliquots of the Stratagene Human Universal Reference RNA were labeled using three eukaryotic target preparation methods followed by uniform replicate array hybridization (Affymetrix U95Av2). Method-dependent variability was observed in the yield and size distribution of labeled products, as well as in the gene expression results. A significant increase in short transcripts, when compared to unamplified mRNA, was observed in methods with long in vitro transcription reactions. Intramethod reproducibility showed correlation coefficients >0.99, whereas intermethod comparisons showed coefficients ranging from 0.94 to 0.98 and a nearly twofold increase in coefficient of variation. Fold amplification for each method positively correlated with the number of genes present. Our experiments uncovered two factors that introduced significant bias in gene expression data: the number of labeled nucleotides, which introduces sequence-dependent bias, and the length of the in vitro transcription reaction, which introduces transcript size-dependent bias. This study provides evidence that variability in expression data may be caused, in part, by differences in amplification and labeling protocols.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Mol. Diagn.Home page
C. I. Dumur, M. Lyons-Weiler, C. Sciulli, C. T. Garrett, I. Schrijver, T. K. Holley, J. Rodriguez-Paris, J. R. Pollack, J. L. Zehnder, M. Price, et al.
Interlaboratory Performance of a Microarray-Based Gene Expression Test to Determine Tissue of Origin in Poorly Differentiated and Undifferentiated Cancers
J. Mol. Diagn., January 1, 2008; 10(1): 67 - 77.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
M. Cronin, C. Sangli, M.-L. Liu, M. Pho, D. Dutta, A. Nguyen, J. Jeong, J. Wu, K. C. Langone, and D. Watson
Analytical Validation of the Oncotype DX Genomic Diagnostic Test for Recurrence Prognosis and Therapeutic Response Prediction in Node-Negative, Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer
Clin. Chem., June 1, 2007; 53(6): 1084 - 1091.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by the American Society for Investigative Pathology and the Association for Molecular Pathology.