Unknown,Transcriptomics,Genomics,Proteomics

Dataset Information

Comparison of Labeling Methods for gene expression analysis on the NimbleGen platform

ABSTRACT: Comparison of ds-cDNA, Indirect and Direct Random Labeling Methods for gene expression analysis on the NimbleGen platform. Expression profiles from artemisinic acid-producing S. cerevisiae strain EPY330 and non-producing strain EPY338 are compared for each labeling method tested. The labeling methods and their comparison are described in detail in Ouellet et al., BMC Biotech 2009. Strains were described in detail previously in Ro et al. BMC Biotechnol 2008, 8(1):83 [PMID: 18983675] RNA pools from strains EPY330 (sample A) and EPY338 (sample B) were reverse-transcribed and labeled in triplicate with the ds-cDNA, the Indirect and the new Direct Random method and hybridized in parallel on NimbleGen 4-plex arrays.

ORGANISM(S): Saccharomyces cerevisiae

SUBMITTER: Mario Ouellet

PROVIDER: E-GEOD-15816 | biostudies-arrayexpress |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-arrayexpress

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A rapid and inexpensive labeling method for microarray gene expression analysis.

Ouellet Mario M Adams Paul D PD Keasling Jay D JD Mukhopadhyay Aindrila A

BMC biotechnology 20091125

<h4>Background</h4>Global gene expression profiling by DNA microarrays is an invaluable tool in biological research. However, existing labeling methods are time consuming and costly and therefore often limit the scale of microarray experiments and sample throughput. Here we introduce a new, fast, inexpensive method for direct random-primed fluorescent labeling of eukaryotic cDNA for gene expression analysis and compare the results obtained on the NimbleGen microarray platform with two other wide ...[more]

PMID: 19939278

Similar Datasets

Project description:The long-term goal of our study is to understand the genetic and epigenetic mechanisms of breast cancer metastasis in human and to discover new possible genetic markers for use in clinical practice. We have used microarray technology (Human OneArray microarray, phylanxbiotech.com) to compare gene expression profiles of non-invasive MCF-7 and invasive MDA-MB-231 cells exposed to dioscin (DS), a steroidal saponin isolated from the roots of wild yam, (Dioscorea villosa). Initially the differential expression of genes (DEG) was identified that followed pathway enrichment analysis (PEA). Of the genes queried on OneArray, we identified 4641 DEG changed between MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 cells (vehicle-treated) with cut-off log2 |fold change|â§ 1. Among these genes, 2439 genes are upregulated and 2002 genes are downregulated. DS exposure (2.30 ïM, 72 h) to these cells identified 801 (MCF-7) and 96 (MDA-MB-231) DEG that showed significant difference compared to untreated cells (p<0.05). Within these gene sets, DS is able to upregulate 395 genes and downregulate 406 genes in MCF-7 and upregulate 36 and downregulate 60 genes in MDA-MB-231 cells. Further comparison of DEG between MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 cells exposed to DS identified 3626 DEG of which 1700 were upregulated and 1926 genes were down-regulated. From PEA, 12 canonical pathways were significantly altered between these two cell lines (MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231). However, no alteration in any of these pathways was noticed in MCF-7 cell, while in MDA-MB-231 cells only MAPK pathway showed significant alteration. When PEA comparison was made on DS exposed cells, it was observed that only 2 pathways were significantly affected. Further, to identify shared DEG, which are targeted by DS and overlapped in both MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 cells, we performed intersection analysis (Venn diagram). We found that only 7 DEG are overlapped of which six are reported in the database. This study highlights the diverse gene networks and pathways through which DS exhibits its effect on breast cancer cells. Two condition experiment. Human breast cancer Cell line MCF-7 groups: Vehicle control and dioscin treated; Human breast cancer cell line MDA-MB-231 cell group; vehicle control and dioscin-treated. Biological replicates: MCF-7 control compared to MCF-7 dioscin treated; MDA-MB-231 control compated to MDA-MB-231 dioscin-treated; MCF-7 control compared to MDA-MB-231 control; MCF-7 dioscin treated compared to MDA-MB-231 dioscin-treated. duplicate array

Project description:we aimed to provide an objective roadmap for histone sample preparation wherein the most notable findings and most important metrics were highlighted. This roadmap included a Histone Coverage Tool that allows researchers to make a snapshot of public or in-house data in search of a protocol that suits their specific needs. However, despite the fact that the coverage provided by a sample preparation workflow is pivotal to answer specific research questions, it should be noted that other metrics such as enzyme specificity and workflow variability can be equally important. Moreover, when it comes to histone sample preparation there are multiple additional challenges and pitfalls compared to regular bottom-up proteomics workflows. First there is the abundance and unequal distribution of arginine and lysine cleavage sites, which makes it virtually impossible to cover the entire histone code with a single bottom-up workflow. The most widely spread workaround for the abundance of cleavage sites is derivatization of lysine residues used to block tryptic digest and create longer peptides. However, this also introduces chemical noise, which obscures biological PTMs, while lowering sensitivity due to diluted signal. The most obvious alternative is an arginine specific digest. However, on the one hand, derivatization of lysine residues not only increases peptide length but also increases retention on the LC-system, while decreasing charge state distribution of the precursor ions. The latter presumably reduces instrumental variation of the workflow, which is remarkable since this source of variation is generally assumed to be constant in the field of LC-MS/MS based proteomics. On the other hand, lysine derivatization also increases the singly charged precursor fraction, which is usually not fragmented in regular data dependent acquisitions, thus increasing the risk of losing annotations. It is clear that not one histone sample preparation workflow will fit all research questions. However, we hope that this manuscript will guide researchers in making informed decisions about the many pitfalls and trade-offs involved in optimizing or assessing histone sample preparation workflows.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Labeling Methods for gene expression analysis on the NimbleGen platform

Publications

A rapid and inexpensive labeling method for microarray gene expression analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets