2014
DOI: 10.12659/msmbr.892101
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparing Bioinformatic Gene Expression Profiling Methods: Microarray and RNA-Seq

Abstract: Understanding the control of gene expression is critical for our understanding of the relationship between genotype and phenotype. The need for reliable assessment of transcript abundance in biological samples has driven scientists to develop novel technologies such as DNA microarray and RNA-Seq to meet this demand. This review focuses on comparing the two most useful methods for whole transcriptome gene expression profiling. Microarrays are reliable and more cost effective than RNA-Seq for gene expression pro… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
98
0
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 209 publications
(110 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
(27 reference statements)
1
98
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…There was a highly significant overlap between this meta-analysis and the results of de Magalhães, et al (2009) (Figure 1) for both over-and underexpressed genes, which was an expected result as this analysis includes almost all the datasets used in the previous study. This overlap, although significant, is perhaps not as extensive as would have been expected, potentially due to the differing biases in microarray and RNA-Seq results (Mantione et al, 2014), which, given the presence of a large number of RNA-Seq datasets in this new analysis could result in different but similar genes being identified. Almost all the overexpressed genes from the 2009 study that were not detected by this study are immune or stress response genes.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…There was a highly significant overlap between this meta-analysis and the results of de Magalhães, et al (2009) (Figure 1) for both over-and underexpressed genes, which was an expected result as this analysis includes almost all the datasets used in the previous study. This overlap, although significant, is perhaps not as extensive as would have been expected, potentially due to the differing biases in microarray and RNA-Seq results (Mantione et al, 2014), which, given the presence of a large number of RNA-Seq datasets in this new analysis could result in different but similar genes being identified. Almost all the overexpressed genes from the 2009 study that were not detected by this study are immune or stress response genes.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…In order to help better identify more specific tendon markers, gene expression profiling techniques such as microarray analysis have been used, and identified TNMD and thrombospondin 4 ( THBS4 ) as possible tendon-selective gene markers [23]. Recent developments in next generation sequencing now offer the possibility to profile the entire transcriptome in a very high-throughput, accurate and quantitative manner [24]. This technique has been used in equine musculoskeletal tissue to determine transcriptomic signatures associated with ageing in cartilage [25].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We are aware that newer, increasingly recognized methods are now commonly used instead of RNA microarray, such as RNA sequencing. RNA sequencing has a higher signal-to-noise ratio than RNA microarray because it allows for the DNA to bind to specific regions of the genome, and does not have problems with cross-hybridization or non-ideal hybridization kinetics that are seen with RNA microarray [75, 76]. As described in details in the Materials and methods section, to accommodate for this disadvantage, the data were subjected to a procedure to minimize the background noise, as described by Irizarry et al .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%