↓ Skip to main content

Multi-platform assessment of transcriptional profiling technologies utilizing a precise probe mapping methodology

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Multi-platform assessment of transcriptional profiling technologies utilizing a precise probe mapping methodology
Published in
BMC Genomics, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12864-015-1913-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jinsheng Yu, Paul F. Cliften, Twyla I. Juehne, Toni M. Sinnwell, Chris S. Sawyer, Mala Sharma, Andrew Lutz, Eric Tycksen, Mark R. Johnson, Matthew R. Minton, Elliott T. Klotz, Andrew E. Schriefer, Wei Yang, Michael E. Heinz, Seth D. Crosby, Richard D. Head

Abstract

The arrival of RNA-seq as a high-throughput method competitive to the established microarray technologies has necessarily driven a need for comparative evaluation. To date, cross-platform comparisons of these technologies have been relatively few in number of platforms analyzed and were typically gene name annotation oriented. Here, we present a more extensive and yet precise assessment to elucidate differences and similarities in performance of numerous aspects including dynamic range, fidelity of raw signal and fold-change with sample titration, and concordance with qRT-PCR (TaqMan). To ensure that these results were not confounded by incompatible comparisons, we introduce the concept of probe mapping directed "transcript pattern". A transcript pattern identifies probe(set)s across platforms that target a common set of transcripts for a specific gene. Thus, three levels of data were examined: entire data sets, data derived from a subset of 15,442 RefSeq genes common across platforms, and data derived from the transcript pattern defined subset of 7,034 RefSeq genes. In general, there were substantial core similarities between all 6 platforms evaluated; but, to varying degrees, the two RNA-seq protocols outperformed three of the four microarray platforms in most categories. Notably, a fourth microarray platform, Agilent with a modified protocol, was comparable, or marginally superior, to the RNA-seq protocols within these same assessments, especially in regards to fold-change evaluation. Furthermore, these 3 platforms (Agilent and two RNA-seq methods) demonstrated over 80 % fold-change concordance with the gold standard qRT-PCR (TaqMan). This study suggests that microarrays can perform on nearly equal footing with RNA-seq, in certain key features, specifically when the dynamic range is comparable. Furthermore, the concept of a transcript pattern has been introduced that may minimize potential confounding factors of multi-platform comparison and may be useful for similar evaluations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Japan 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 54 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 10%
Other 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 3%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 16 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 15 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 September 2015.
All research outputs
#3,608,946
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#1,380
of 10,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,703
of 272,856 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#34
of 328 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,655 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 272,856 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 328 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.