Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 283

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

mRNA transcript quantification in archival samples using multiplexed, color-coded probes

Open access
Reis, Patricia P, Waldron, Levi, Goswami, Rashmi S, Xu, Wei, Xuan, Yali, Perez-Ordonez, Bayardo, Gullane, Patrick, Irish, Jonathan, Jurisica, Igor, Kamel-Reid, Suzanne·2011·BMC Biotechnology

Abstract

Background: A recently developed probe-based technology, the NanoString nCounter™ gene expression system, has been shown to allow accurate mRNA transcript quantification using low amounts of total RNA. We assessed the ability of this technology for mRNA expression quantification in archived formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) oral carcinoma samples. Results: We measured the mRNA transcript abundance of 20 genes (COL3A1, COL4A1, COL5A1, COL5A2, CTHRC1, CXCL1, CXCL13, MMP1, P4HA2, PDPN, PLOD2, POSTN, SDHA, SERPINE1, SERPINE2, SERPINH1, THBS2, TNC, GAPDH, RPS18) in 38 samples (19 paired fresh-frozen and FFPE oral carcinoma tissues, archived from 1997-2008) by both NanoString and SYBR Green I fluorescent dye-based quantitative real-time PCR (RQ-PCR). We compared gene expression data obtained by NanoString vs. RQ-PCR in both fresh-frozen and FFPE samples. Fresh-frozen samples showed a good overall Pearson correlation of 0.78, and FFPE samples showed a lower overall correlation coefficient of 0.59, which is likely due to sample quality. We found a higher correlation coefficient between fresh-frozen and FFPE samples analyzed by NanoString (r = 0.90) compared to fresh-frozen and FFPE samples analyzed by RQ-PCR (r = 0.50). In addition, NanoString data showed a higher mean correlation (r = 0.94) between individual fresh-frozen and FFPE sample pairs compared to RQ-PCR (r = 0.53). Conclusions: Based on our results, we conclude that both technologies are useful for gene expression quantification in fresh-frozen or FFPE tissues; however, the probe-based NanoString method achieved superior gene expression quantification results when compared to RQ-PCR in archived FFPE samples. We believe that this newly developed technique is optimal for large-scale validation studies using total RNA isolated from archived, FFPE samples.

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 · 10.1186/1472-6750-11-46

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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 2 references

Cited by

See all 283

Metadata

Authors
Reis, P. P., Waldron, L., Goswami, R. S., Xu, W., Xuan, Y., Perez-Ordonez, B., Gullane, P., Irish, J., Jurisica, I., & Kamel-Reid, S.
Venue
BMC Biotechnology
Published
2011-05-09
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
46-46
ISSN
1472-6750 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2009847758
Cited by
283
References
2
FWCI
4.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: mRNA transcript quantification in archival samples using multiplexed, color-coded probes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1472-6750-11-46
The paper
Reis, P. P., Waldron, L., Goswami, R. S., Xu, W., Xuan, Y., Perez-Ordonez, B., Gullane, P., Irish, J., Jurisica, I., & Kamel-Reid, S. (2011). mRNA transcript quantification in archival samples using multiplexed, color-coded probes. BMC Biotechnology. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6750-11-46

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.