The DOI matches its Crossref record.
RNA Amplification Results in Reproducible Microarray Data with Slight Ratio Bias
Open accessAbstract
Microarray expression analysis demands large amounts of RNA that are often not available. RNA amplification techniques have been developed to overcome this prcblem, but limited data are available regarding the reproducibility and maintenance of original transcript ratios. We optimized and validated two amplification techniques: a modified in vitro transcription for the linear amplification of 3 microg total RNA and a SMART PCR-based technique for the exponential amplification of 50 ng total RNA. To determine bias between transcript ratios, we compared the expression profiles in mouse testis versus spleen between the two amplification methods and a standard labeling protocol, using microarrays containing 4596 cDNAs spotted in duplicate. With each method, replicate hybridizations were highly reproducible. However, when comparing the amplification methods to standard labeling, correlation coefficients were lower. Twelve genes that exhibited inconsistent or contradictory expression ratios among the three methods were verified by quantitative RT-PCR. The amplification methods showed slightly more discrepancies in the expression ratios when compared to quantitative RT-PCR results but were more sensitive in terms of detecting expressed genes. In conclusion, although amplification methods introduce slight changes in the transcript ratios compared to standard labeling, they are highly reproducible. For small sample size, in vitro transcription is the preferred method, but one should never combine different labeling strategies within a single study.
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
Cited by
Role of PlGF in the intra- and intermolecular cross talk between the VEGF receptors Flt1 and Flk1
Autiero, M., Waltenberger, J., Communi, D., Kranz, A., Moons, L., Lambrechts, D., Kroll, J., Plaisance, S., De Mol, M., Bono, F., et al. (2003) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/nm884 · Cited by 773
Jacob, C. P., Koutsilieri, E., Bartl, J., Neuen-Jacob, E., Arzberger, T., Zander, N., Ravid, R., Roggendorf, W., Riederer, P., & Grünblatt, E. (2007) · Journal of Alzheimer's Disease · doi:10.3233/jad-2007-11113 · Cited by 317
Juhász, G., Puskás, L. G., Komonyi, O., Érdi, B., Maróy, P., Neufeld, T. P., & Sass, M. (2007) · Cell Death & Differentiation · doi:10.1038/sj.cdd.4402123 · Cited by 121
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Puskás, L. G., Zvara, Á., Hackler, L., & Hummelen, P. V.
- Venue
- BioTechniques
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2002-06
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1330-1340
- ISSN
- 0736-6205 (ISSN-L)
- 1940-9818
- OpenAlex
- W1560209986
- Cited by
- 226
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.99
- 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: RNA Amplification Results in Reproducible Microarray Data with Slight Ratio Bias. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2144/02326mt04
- The paper
- Puskás, L. G., Zvara, Á., Hackler, L., & Hummelen, P. V. (2002). RNA Amplification Results in Reproducible Microarray Data with Slight Ratio Bias. BioTechniques. https://doi.org/10.2144/02326mt04
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.