↓ Skip to main content

On the relevance of technical variation due to building pools in microarray experiments

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
On the relevance of technical variation due to building pools in microarray experiments
Published in
BMC Genomics, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12864-015-2055-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Henrik Rudolf, Gerd Nuernberg, Dirk Koczan, Jens Vanselow, Tanja Gempe, Martin Beye, Gérard Leboulle, Kaspar Bienefeld, Norbert Reinsch

Abstract

Pooled samples are frequently used in experiments measuring gene expression. In this method, RNA from different individuals sharing the same experimental conditions and explanatory variables is blended and their concentrations are jointly measured. As a matter of principle, individuals are represented in equal shares in each pool. However, some degree of disproportionality may arise from the limits of technical precision. As a consequence a special kind of technical error occurs, which can be modelled by a respective variance component. Previously published theory - allowing for variable pool sizes - has been applied to four microarray gene expression data sets from different species in order to assess the practical relevance of this type of technical error in terms of significance and size of this variance component. The number of transcripts with a significant variance component due to imperfect blending was found to be 4329 (23 %) in mouse data and 7093 (49 %) in honey bees, but only 6 in rats and none whatsoever in human data. These results correspond to a false discovery rate of 5 % in each data set. The number of transcripts found to be differentially expressed between treatments was always higher when the blending error variance was neglected. Simulations clearly indicated overly-optimistic (anti-conservative) test results in terms of false discovery rates whenever this source of variability was not represented in the model. Imperfect equality of shares when blending RNA from different individuals into joint pools of variable size is a source of technical variation with relevance for experimental design, practice at the laboratory bench and data analysis. Its potentially adverse effects, incorrect identification of differentially expressed transcripts and overly-optimistic significance tests, can be fully avoided, however, by the sound application of recently established theory and models for data analysis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 3 25%
Researcher 3 25%
Professor 2 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Unknown 3 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 42%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 17%
Neuroscience 1 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 8%
Unknown 3 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 03 August 2020.
All research outputs
#12,745,422
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#4,402
of 10,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,851
of 387,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#149
of 380 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,655 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 387,568 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 380 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.