2005
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-6-307
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Avoiding inconsistencies over time and tracking difficulties in Applied Biosystems AB1700™/Panther™ probe-to-gene annotations

Abstract: Background: Significant inconsistencies between probe-to-gene annotations between different releases of probe set identifiers by commercial microarray platform solutions have been reported. Such inconsistencies lead to misleading or ambiguous interpretation of published gene expression results.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

4
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Data quality was determined using a QC procedure [40] . Data were normalized using NeONORM with k = 0.02 [41–43] . Subtraction profiling was performed as described previously [44,45] using the CDS test [46] .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Data quality was determined using a QC procedure [40] . Data were normalized using NeONORM with k = 0.02 [41–43] . Subtraction profiling was performed as described previously [44,45] using the CDS test [46] .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Note that we renormalized the resulting data according to the median once more after having removed probes for which the software has set flags equal to or greater than 2 12 , indicating compromised or failed measurements (as recommended by Applied Biosystems). This secondary normalization is implemented in the ace.map suite that we developed ( 39 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For microarray analyses, hybridization and detection were performed following the protocols supplied by Illumina using the HumanHT-12 v4 Expression BeadChip Kit and an iScan system (both Illumina). The raw data were quality controlled 57 , NeoNORM normalized using k = 0.2 58 , and analyzed as outlined in 59 . For subtraction profiling we used the CDS statistical test 60 with a positive False Discovery Rate correction where appropriate.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%