Physiol. Genomics AJP: Endocrinology and Metabolism
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Physiol. Genomics (June 18, 2002). doi:10.1152/physiolgenomics.00120.2001
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
10/3/169    most recent
00120.2001v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Manduchi, E.
Right arrow Articles by Stoeckert Jr., C. J
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Manduchi, E.
Right arrow Articles by Stoeckert Jr., C. J

Articles in PresS, published online ahead of print June 18, 2002
Physiol Genomics, 10.1152/physiolgenomics.00120.2001
Submitted on December 18, 2001
Accepted on June 12, 2002

Comparison of different labeling methods for 2-channel high-density microarray experiments

Elisabetta Manduchi1*, L. Marie Scearce2, John E Brestelli2, Gregory R Grant1, Klaus H Kaestner2, and Christian J Stoeckert Jr.1

1 Center for Bioinformatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
2 Department of Genetics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: manduchi{at}pcbi.upenn.edu.

In this report we evaluate three methods for labeling nucleic acids to be hybridized to a cDNA microarray: direct labeling, indirect amino-allyl labeling, and the dendrimer labeling method (Genisphere). The dendrimer method requires the smallest quantity of sample, 2.5 µg of total RNA as compared to 20 µg with the direct or indirect methods. Therefore we wanted to know if the performance of the dendrimer method is comparable to the other methods, or if significant information is lost. Performance can be considered in terms of sensitivity, dynamic range, and reproducibility of the quantitative signals for gene intensity. We compared the three labeling methods by generating three sets of eight self-to-self hybridizations using the same total RNA sample in all cases ("replicate study"). In our analysis we controlled for the effects of print-tip and background subtraction biases. We also performed a smaller study, namely a dilution series study with five dilution points per labeling method, to evaluate one aspect of predictive ability. From the replicate study the dendrimer method appeared to perform as well, and often better, with respect to reproducibility and ability to detect expression. However, in the dilution series study, this method was outperformed by the other two in terms of predictive ability and did not perform very well. These findings are helping to guide our decisions on what labeling method to use for subsequent studies, based on the purpose of a specific study and its limitations in terms of available material.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
BioinformaticsHome page
K. K. Dobbin, E. S. Kawasaki, D. W. Petersen, and R. M. Simon
Characterizing dye bias in microarray experiments
Bioinformatics, May 15, 2005; 21(10): 2430 - 2437.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Biol. Chem.Home page
M. Ohsugi, C. Cras-Meneur, Y. Zhou, E. Bernal-Mizrachi, J. D. Johnson, D. S. Luciani, K. S. Polonsky, and M. A. Permutt
Reduced Expression of the Insulin Receptor in Mouse Insulinoma (MIN6) Cells Reveals Multiple Roles of Insulin Signaling in Gene Expression, Proliferation, Insulin Content, and Secretion
J. Biol. Chem., February 11, 2005; 280(6): 4992 - 5003.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
DiabetesHome page
M. Ohsugi, C. Cras-Meneur, Y. Zhou, W. Warren, E. Bernal-Mizrachi, and M. A. Permutt
Glucose and Insulin Treatment of Insulinoma Cells Results in Transcriptional Regulation of a Common Set of Genes
Diabetes, June 1, 2004; 53(6): 1496 - 1508.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Cancer Res.Home page
T. Xu, C.-T. Shu, E. Purdom, D. Dang, D. Ilsley, Y. Guo, J. Weber, S. P. Holmes, and P. P. Lee
Microarray Analysis Reveals Differences in Gene Expression of Circulating CD8+ T Cells in Melanoma Patients and Healthy Donors
Cancer Res., May 15, 2004; 64(10): 3661 - 3667.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Physiol. GenomicsHome page
F. Yadetie, A. Laegreid, I. Bakke, W. Kusnierczyk, J. Komorowski, H. L. Waldum, and A. K. Sandvik
Liver gene expression in rats in response to the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-{alpha} agonist ciprofibrate
Physiol Genomics, September 29, 2003; 15(1): 9 - 19.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
K. Dobbin, J. H. Shih, and R. Simon
Questions and Answers on Design of Dual-Label Microarrays for Identifying Differentially Expressed Genes
J Natl Cancer Inst, September 17, 2003; 95(18): 1362 - 1369.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
DiabetesHome page
K. H. Kaestner, C. S. Lee, L. M. Scearce, J. E. Brestelli, A. Arsenlis, P. P. Le, K. A. Lantz, J. Crabtree, A. Pizarro, J. Mazzarelli, et al.
Transcriptional Program of the Endocrine Pancreas in Mice and Humans
Diabetes, July 1, 2003; 52(7): 1604 - 1610.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Nucleic Acids ResHome page
L. Smith, P. Underhill, C. Pritchard, Z. Tymowska-Lalanne, S. Abdul-Hussein, H. Hilton, L. Winchester, D. Williams, T. Freeman, S. Webb, et al.
Single primer amplification (SPA) of cDNA for microarray expression analysis
Nucleic Acids Res., February 1, 2003; 31(3): e9 - e9.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2002 by the American Physiological Society.