The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Analysis of matched mRNA measurements from two different microarray technologies
Abstract
Motivation: The existence of several technologies for measuring gene expression makes the question of cross-technology agreement of measurements an important issue. Cross-platform utilization of data from different technologies has the potential to reduce the need to duplicate experiments but requires corresponding measurements to be comparable. Methods: A comparison of mRNA measurements of 2895 sequence-matched genes in 56 cell lines from the standard panel of 60 cancer cell lines from the National Cancer Institute (NCI 60) was carried out by calculating correlation between matched measurements and calculating concordance between cluster from two high-throughput DNA microarray technologies, Stanford type cDNA microarrays and Affymetrix oligonucleotide microarrays. Results: In general, corresponding measurements from the two platforms showed poor correlation. Clusters of genes and cell lines were discordant between the two technologies, suggesting that relative intra-technology relationships were not preserved. GC-content, sequence length, average signal intensity, and an estimator of cross-hybridization were found to be associated with the degree of correlation. This suggests gene-specific, or more correctly probe-specific, factors influencing measurements differently in the two platforms, implying a poor prognosis for a broad utilization of gene expression measurements across platforms. Contact: wpkuo@mit.edu * To whom correspondence should be addressed. 1 These authors contributed equally to this work.
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.
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
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
Cited by
DNA Biosensors and Microarrays
Sassolas, A., Leca-Bouvier, B. D., & Blum, L. J. (2008) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr0684467 · Cited by 1,246
Prediction of Survival in Diffuse Large-B-Cell Lymphoma Based on the Expression of Six Genes
Lossos, I. S., Czerwinski, D. K., Alizadeh, A. A., Wechser, M. A., Tibshirani, R., Botstein, D., & Levy, R. (2004) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa032520 · Cited by 911
Multiple-laboratory comparison of microarray platforms
Irizarry, R. A., Warren, D., Spencer, F., Kim, I. F., Biswal, S., Frank, B. C., Gabrielson, E., Garcia, J. G. N., Geoghegan, J., Germino, G., et al. (2005) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth756 · Cited by 862
Regularized gene selection in cancer microarray meta-analysis
Ma, S., & Huang, J. (2009) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-10-1 · Cited by 831
Coexpression Analysis of Human Genes Across Many Microarray Data Sets
Lee, H. K., Hsu, A. K., Sajdak, J., Qin, J., & Pavlidis, P. (2004) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.1910904 · Cited by 770
Metadata
- Authors
- Kuo, W. P., Jenssen, T.-K., Butte, A. J., Ohno-Machado, L., & Kohane, I. S.
- Venue
- Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2002-03-01
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 405-412
- ISSN
- 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
- 1367-4811
- OpenAlex
- W2156031219
- Cited by
- 480
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 19.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Analysis of matched mRNA measurements from two different microarray technologies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/bioinformatics/18.3.405
- The paper
- Kuo, W. P., Jenssen, T.-K., Butte, A. J., Ohno-Machado, L., & Kohane, I. S. (2002). Analysis of matched mRNA measurements from two different microarray technologies. Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/18.3.405
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.