The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Significance analysis of microarrays applied to the ionizing radiation response
Open accessAbstract
Microarrays can measure the expression of thousands of genes to identify changes in expression between different biological states. Methods are needed to determine the significance of these changes while accounting for the enormous number of genes. We describe a method, Significance Analysis of Microarrays (SAM), that assigns a score to each gene on the basis of change in gene expression relative to the standard deviation of repeated measurements. For genes with scores greater than an adjustable threshold, SAM uses permutations of the repeated measurements to estimate the percentage of genes identified by chance, the false discovery rate (FDR). When the transcriptional response of human cells to ionizing radiation was measured by microarrays, SAM identified 34 genes that changed at least 1.5-fold with an estimated FDR of 12%, compared with FDRs of 60 and 84% by using conventional methods of analysis. Of the 34 genes, 19 were involved in cell cycle regulation and 3 in apoptosis. Surprisingly, four nucleotide excision repair genes were induced, suggesting that this repair pathway for UV-damaged DNA might play a previously unrecognized role in repairing DNA damaged by ionizing radiation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Significance analysis of microarrays (SAM) was used to identify miRNAs differentially expressed between samples (FDR = 0) (Tusher et al. 2001).”
From MicroRNA expression in the adult mouse central nervous system (2008) · cites this paper as Tusher et al. 2001
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, 63 miRNAs showed evidence of being differentially expressed within the CNS (significance analysis of microarrays [SAM]; false discovery rate [ FDR = 0]) (Tusher et al. 2001)”
From MicroRNA expression in the adult mouse central nervous system (2008) · cites this paper as Tusher et al. 2001
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Additionally, a number of miRNAs found to be up-regulated in a recent study profiling glial cells in multiple sclerosis brain lesions, as well as our previous study to determine deregulated miRNAs in scrapie infection, were also identified to be enriched in microglial cell lines in this study [18], [38]. These were miR-142-3p, miR-34a, and miR-223.”
From MicroRNA 146a (miR-146a) Is Over-Expressed during Prion Disease and Modulates the Innate Immune Response and the Microglial Activation State (2012) · cites this paper as [18]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“As a means to control the FDR and solve potential multiple hypothesis testing problems in real biological datasets, we usually apply permutation-based methods for calculating q-values and global FDRs.”
From Accurate proteome-wide label-free quantification by delayed normalization and maximal peptide ratio extraction, termed MaxLFQ (2014) · cites this paper as [55]
In the citing paper
“The analysis of the differential gene expression with the Significance analysis of microarrays (SAM) procedure [21], performed on the cDNA measurements with signals recovered in at least 80% of the microarray experiments, detected 366 up- and 474 down-regulated genes, corresponding to a 5% false discovery rate (FDR).”
From Adipose tissue transcriptomic signature highlights the pathological relevance of extracellular matrix in human obesity (2008) · cites this paper as [21]
In the citing paper
“The analysis of differential gene expression with the SAM procedure [21], performed on the cDNA measurements with signals recovered in at least 80% of the microarray experiments, detected 1,744 up- and 1,627 down-regulated genes, corresponding to a 5% FDR.”
From Adipose tissue transcriptomic signature highlights the pathological relevance of extracellular matrix in human obesity (2008) · cites this paper as [21]
In the citing paper
“Significant differential expression was established by imposing a 5% FDR threshold in the SAM selection procedure for all conditions.”
From Adipose tissue transcriptomic signature highlights the pathological relevance of extracellular matrix in human obesity (2008) · cites this paper as [21]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x · Cited by 109,482
Cluster analysis and display of genome-wide expression patterns
Eisen, M. B., Spellman, P. T., Brown, P. O., & Botstein, D. (1998) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.95.25.14863 · Cited by 16,184
The p21 Cdk-interacting protein Cip1 is a potent inhibitor of G1 cyclin-dependent kinases.
Wade Harper, J. (1993) · Cell · doi:10.1016/0092-8674(93)90499-g · Cited by 5,651
Kastan, M. B., Zhan, Q., El-Deiry, W. S., Carrier, F., Jacks, T., Walsh, W. V., Plunkett, B. S., Vogelstein, B., & Fornace, A. J. (1992) · Cell · doi:10.1016/0092-8674(92)90593-2 · Cited by 3,047
Multiple Comparison Procedures
Hochberg, Y., & Tamhane, A. C. (1987) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/9780470316672 · Cited by 2,389
Multiple Comparisons: Theory and Methods
Christensen, R., & Hsu, J. C. (1997) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270920 · Cited by 1,105
Resampling-Based Multiple Testing.
Booth, J. G., Westfall, P. H., & Young, S. S. (1994) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2291234 · Cited by 909
Sugasawa, K., Ng, J. M. Y., Masutani, C., Iwai, S., van der Spek, P. J., Eker, A. P. M., Hanaoka, F., Bootsma, D., & Hoeijmakers, J. H. J. (1998) · Molecular Cell · doi:10.1016/s1097-2765(00)80132-x · Cited by 899
Roberts, C. J., Nelson, B., Marton, M. J., Stoughton, R. B., Meyer, M. R., Bennett, H. A., He, Y. D., Dai, H. A., Walker, W. L., Hughes, T. R., et al. (2000) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.287.5454.873 · Cited by 855
Mammalian DNA nucleotide excision repair reconstituted with purified protein components
Aboussekhra, A., Biggerstaff, M., Shivji, M. K. K., Vilpo, J. A., Moncollin, V., Podust, V. N., Protić, M., Hübscher, U., Egly, J.-M., & Wood, R. D. (1995) · Cell · doi:10.1016/0092-8674(95)90289-9 · Cited by 837
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Metagenomic biomarker discovery and explanation
Segata, N., Izard, J., Waldron, L., Gevers, D., Miropolsky, L., Garrett, W. S., & Huttenhower, C. (2011) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/gb-2011-12-6-r60 · Cited by 16,192
Inferring tumour purity and stromal and immune cell admixture from expression data
Yoshihara, K., Shahmoradgoli, M., Martínez, E., Vegesna, R., Kim, H., Torres-Garcia, W., Treviño, V., Shen, H., Laird, P. W., Levine, D. A., et al. (2013) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms3612 · Cited by 9,778
Statistical significance for genomewide studies
Storey, J. D., & Tibshirani, R. (2003) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1530509100 · Cited by 9,692
Self-citationMootha, V. K., Lindgren, C. M., Eriksson, K.-F., Subramanian, A., Sihag, S., Lehar, J., Puigserver, P., Carlsson, E., Ridderstråle, M., Laurila, E., et al. (2003) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng1180 · Cited by 10,197
Adjusting batch effects in microarray expression data using empirical Bayes methods
Johnson, W. E., Li, C., & Rabinovic, A. (2007) · Biostatistics · doi:10.1093/biostatistics/kxj037 · Cited by 8,658
Metadata
- Authors
- Tusher, V. G., Tibshirani, R., & Chu, G.
- Affiliations
- Stanford Medicine (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2001-04-17
- Volume
- 98
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 5116-5121
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC33173
- OpenAlex
- W4294107304
- Cited by
- 10,568
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2026: 55 · 2025: 96 · 2024: 152 · 2023: 269 · 2022: 204 · 2021: 246 · 2020: 268 · 2019: 272 · 2018: 270 · 2017: 358 · 2016: 402 · 2015: 466 · 2014: 518 · 2013: 599 · 2012: 677
- FWCI
- 95.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (1r41ca075675-01)
- National Cancer Institute (CA75675, CA77302, R01CA077302)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
- Keywords
- significance analysis of microarrays, false discovery rate, ionizing radiation response, transcriptional response, cell cycle regulation, apoptosis, nucleotide excision repair, DNA repair, UV-damaged DNA, human cells
- MeSH terms
- Cell Cycle, DNA Damage, DNA Repair, Gene Expression Regulation, Humans, Radiation, Ionizing, RNA, Messenger, Statistics as Topic, Tumor Cells, Cultured, Reproducibility of Results, Down-Regulation, Up-Regulation, Apoptosis, Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis, Gene Expression Profiling
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
