Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 70

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Gene expression profiling of whole blood: Comparison of target preparation methods for accurate and reproducible microarray analysis

Vartanian, Kristina, Slottke, Rachel, Johnstone, Timothy, Casale, Amanda, Planck, Stephen R, Choi, Dongseok, Smith, Justine R, Rosenbaum, James T, Harrington, Christina A·2009·BMC Genomics

Abstract

Background: Peripheral blood is an accessible and informative source of transcriptomal information for many human disease and pharmacogenomic studies. While there can be significant advantages to analyzing RNA isolated from whole blood, particularly in clinical studies, the preparation of samples for microarray analysis is complicated by the need to minimize artifacts associated with highly abundant globin RNA transcripts. The impact of globin RNA transcripts on expression profiling data can potentially be reduced by using RNA preparation and labeling methods that remove or block globin RNA during the microarray assay. We compared four different methods for preparing microarray hybridization targets from human whole blood collected in PAXGene tubes. Three of the methods utilized the Affymetrix one-cycle cDNA synthesis/in vitro transcription protocol but varied treatment of input RNA as follows: i. no treatment; ii. treatment with GLOBINclear; or iii. treatment with globin PNA oligos. In the fourth method cDNA targets were prepared with the Ovation amplification and labeling system. Results: We find that microarray targets generated with labeling methods that reduce globin mRNA levels or minimize the impact of globin transcripts during hybridization detect more transcripts in the microarray assay compared with the standard Affymetrix method. Comparison of microarray results with quantitative PCR analysis of a panel of genes from the NF-kappa B pathway shows good correlation of transcript measurements produced with all four target preparation methods, although method-specific differences in overall correlation were observed. The impact of freezing blood collected in PAXGene tubes on data reproducibility was also examined. Expression profiles show little or no difference when RNA is extracted from either fresh or frozen blood samples. Conclusion: RNA preparation and labeling methods designed to reduce the impact of globin mRNA transcripts can significantly improve the sensitivity of the DNA microarray expression profiling assay for whole blood samples. While blockage of globin transcripts during first strand cDNA synthesis with globin PNAs resulted in the best overall performance in this study, we conclude that selection of a protocol for expression profiling studies in blood should depend on several factors, including implementation requirements of the method and study design. RNA isolated from either freshly collected or frozen blood samples stored in PAXGene tubes can be used without altering gene expression profiles.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-2164-10-2

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Flow diagram of whole blood methods comparison study. A total of 8 PAXGene blood tubes were collected from each donor: 4 tubes were processed on day of collection and 4 were frozen for later processing. RNA was isolated and pooled prior to microarray target labeling with one of four different methods. Microarray results were compared among methods and with quantitative RT-PCR for each donor sample.
Figure 1 Flow diagram of whole blood methods comparison study. A total of 8 PAXGene blood tubes were collected from each donor: 4 tubes were processed on day of collection and 4 were frozen for later processing. RNA was isolated and pooled prior to microarray target labeling with one of four different methods. Microarray results were compared among methods and with quantitative RT-PCR for each donor sample.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Quality assessment of cRNA and cDNA targets. A representative electropherogram (Bioanalyzer trace) of targets produced with each labeling method is shown. For each method, target yields for all samples are listed to the right of the trace. Values in bold text correspond to the sample profiled in the adjacent electropherogram trace.
Figure 2 Quality assessment of cRNA and cDNA targets. A representative electropherogram (Bioanalyzer trace) of targets produced with each labeling method is shown. For each method, target yields for all samples are listed to the right of the trace. Values in bold text correspond to the sample profiled in the adjacent electropherogram trace.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Box plots of raw probe cell and normalized probe set signal intensities. All box plots were generated with Affymetrix Expression Console. A. Probe cell intensity box plot generated from CEL file probe cell intensity values for all targets; B. Box plot of globally scaled, MAS 5.0 summarized probe set signals for all targets. C. Box plot of RMA summarized probe set signals for Method 1 targets; D. Box plot of RMA summarized probe set signals for Method 2 targets; E. Box plot of RMA summarized probe set signals for Method 3 targets; F. Box plot of RMA summarized probe set signals for Method 4 targets. Donor source is indicated on the X-axis: red text indicates RNA isolation from PAXGene tubes on the day of collection, blue text indicates RNA isolation from PAXGene tube following freezing.
Figure 3 Box plots of raw probe cell and normalized probe set signal intensities. All box plots were generated with Affymetrix Expression Console. A. Probe cell intensity box plot generated from CEL file probe cell intensity values for all targets; B. Box plot of globally scaled, MAS 5.0 summarized probe set signals for all targets. C. Box plot of RMA summarized probe set signals for Method 1 targets; D. Box plot of RMA summarized probe set signals for Method 2 targets; E. Box plot of RMA summarized probe set signals for Method 3 targets; F. Box plot of RMA summarized probe set signals for Method 4 targets. Donor source is indicated on the X-axis: red text indicates RNA isolation from PAXGene tubes on the day of collection, blue text indicates RNA isolation from PAXGene tube following freezing.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Relative signal levels for globin transcripts in microarray data. The average log2 intensity ratio of globin RNA probe sets to the control actin probe set is shown. The Human Genome Focus Array contains two probe sets that hybridize with γ hemoglobin RNA, two probe sets that hybridize with α-globin RNA, and one probe set that hybridizes with β-globin RNA.
Figure 4 Relative signal levels for globin transcripts in microarray data. The average log2 intensity ratio of globin RNA probe sets to the control actin probe set is shown. The Human Genome Focus Array contains two probe sets that hybridize with γ hemoglobin RNA, two probe sets that hybridize with α-globin RNA, and one probe set that hybridizes with β-globin RNA.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Comparison of microarray and quantitative RT-PCR results for genes of NF-κB pathway. Scatter plots of MAS5.0 scaled probe set intensities measured on the GeneChip Human Genome Focus Array and real-time PCR ΔCt values for 75 genes of the NF-κB pathway. A. Sample C, microarray targets prepared with Method 1; B. Sample C, microarray targets prepared with Method 2; C. Sample C, microarray targets prepared with Method 3; D. Sample C, microarray targets prepared with Method 4. Microarray data was analyzed and scaled with MAS 5.0 and RT-PCR data was normalized by subtracting the mean Ct value for five housekeeping genes (β2-microglobin, hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase 1, ribosomal protein L13a, glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase, and β-actin) to yield ΔCt values. Pearson correlation coefficients are reported for each comparison.
Figure 5 Comparison of microarray and quantitative RT-PCR results for genes of NF-κB pathway. Scatter plots of MAS5.0 scaled probe set intensities measured on the GeneChip Human Genome Focus Array and real-time PCR ΔCt values for 75 genes of the NF-κB pathway. A. Sample C, microarray targets prepared with Method 1; B. Sample C, microarray targets prepared with Method 2; C. Sample C, microarray targets prepared with Method 3; D. Sample C, microarray targets prepared with Method 4. Microarray data was analyzed and scaled with MAS 5.0 and RT-PCR data was normalized by subtracting the mean Ct value for five housekeeping genes (β2-microglobin, hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase 1, ribosomal protein L13a, glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase, and β-actin) to yield ΔCt values. Pearson correlation coefficients are reported for each comparison.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Venn diagram of transcript detection among globin RNA reduction methods. Gene expression lists for each target preparation method were determined by filtering for all probe sets scored as Present (p-value < 0.05) in 4 out of 6 microarray assays (donors A, C and D). Overlap of detected transcripts is shown for Method 2 (Globin PNAs_Affymetrix), Method 3 (GLOBINclear_Affymetrix) and Method 4 (no depletion_NuGEN).
Figure 6 Venn diagram of transcript detection among globin RNA reduction methods. Gene expression lists for each target preparation method were determined by filtering for all probe sets scored as Present (p-value < 0.05) in 4 out of 6 microarray assays (donors A, C and D). Overlap of detected transcripts is shown for Method 2 (Globin PNAs_Affymetrix), Method 3 (GLOBINclear_Affymetrix) and Method 4 (no depletion_NuGEN).CC BY · PubMed Central

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Show all 19 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Vartanian, K., Slottke, R., Johnstone, T., Casale, A., Planck, S. R., Choi, D., Smith, J. R., Rosenbaum, J. T., & Harrington, C. A.
Venue
BMC Genomics
Published
2009-01-05
Volume
10
Issue
1
ISSN
1471-2164
Cited by
70
References
19
Language
en

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

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.