Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 232

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluating Gene Expression in C57BL/6J and DBA/2J Mouse Striatum Using RNA-Seq and Microarrays

Open access
Bottomly, Daniel, Walter, Nicole A. R., Hunter, Jessica Ezzell, Darakjian, Priscila, Kawane, Sunita, Buck, Kari J., Searles, Robert P., Mooney, Michael, McWeeney, Shannon K., Hitzemann, Robert·2011·PLoS ONE

Abstract

C57BL/6J (B6) and DBA/2J (D2) are two of the most commonly used inbred mouse strains in neuroscience research. However, the only currently available mouse genome is based entirely on the B6 strain sequence. Subsequently, oligonucleotide microarray probes are based solely on this B6 reference sequence, making their application for gene expression profiling comparisons across mouse strains dubious due to their allelic sequence differences, including single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). The emergence of next-generation sequencing (NGS) and the RNA-Seq application provides a clear alternative to oligonucleotide arrays for detecting differential gene expression without the problems inherent to hybridization-based technologies. Using RNA-Seq, an average of 22 million short sequencing reads were generated per sample for 21 samples (10 B6 and 11 D2), and these reads were aligned to the mouse reference genome, allowing 16,183 Ensembl genes to be queried in striatum for both strains. To determine differential expression, 'digital mRNA counting' is applied based on reads that map to exons. The current study compares RNA-Seq (Illumina GA IIx) with two microarray platforms (Illumina MouseRef-8 v2.0 and Affymetrix MOE 430 2.0) to detect differential striatal gene expression between the B6 and D2 inbred mouse strains. We show that by using stringent data processing requirements differential expression as determined by RNA-Seq is concordant with both the Affymetrix and Illumina platforms in more instances than it is concordant with only a single platform, and that instances of discordance with respect to direction of fold change were rare. Finally, we show that additional information is gained from RNA-Seq compared to hybridization-based techniques as RNA-Seq detects more genes than either microarray platform. The majority of genes differentially expressed in RNA-Seq were only detected as present in RNA-Seq, which is important for studies with smaller effect sizes where the sensitivity of hybridization-based techniques could bias interpretation.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0017820

Cites

12 of 12 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 12 references

Cited by

See all 232

Metadata

Authors
Bottomly, D., Walter, N. A. R., Hunter, J. E., Darakjian, P., Kawane, S., Buck, K. J., Searles, R. P., Mooney, M., McWeeney, S. K., & Hitzemann, R.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2011-03-24
Volume
6
Issue
3
Pages
e17820
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2072602203
Cited by
232
References
12
FWCI
8.46
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: Evaluating Gene Expression in C57BL/6J and DBA/2J Mouse Striatum Using RNA-Seq and Microarrays. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0017820
The paper
Bottomly, D., Walter, N. A. R., Hunter, J. E., Darakjian, P., Kawane, S., Buck, K. J., Searles, R. P., Mooney, M., McWeeney, S. K., & Hitzemann, R. (2011). Evaluating Gene Expression in C57BL/6J and DBA/2J Mouse Striatum Using RNA-Seq and Microarrays. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017820

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.