MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124797193 · doi:10.1186/1479-5876-7-55

The chemiluminescence based Ziplex® automated workstation focus array reproduces ovarian cancer Affymetrix GeneChip® expression profiles

2009· article· en· W2124797193 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael C. Quinn, Daniel J. Wilson, Fiona Young, Adam A. Dempsey, Suzanna L. Arcand, Ashley H. Birch, Paulina M. Wojnarowicz, Diane Provencher, Anne‐Marie Mes‐Masson, David Englert, Patricia N. Tonin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Translational Medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced Biosensing Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill University Health CentreCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMcGill UniversityMcGill Genome Centre
FundersPartenariat Canadien Contre Le CancerCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGenome CanadaMcGill University Health CentreTerry Fox Research InstituteGénome QuébecMcGill University
KeywordsGene chip analysisChemiluminescenceOvarian cancerMicroarrayFocus (optics)Computational biologyCancerComputer scienceGene expressionBioinformaticsGeneBiologyGeneticsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: As gene expression signatures may serve as biomarkers, there is a need to develop technologies based on mRNA expression patterns that are adaptable for translational research. Xceed Molecular has recently developed a Ziplex technology, that can assay for gene expression of a discrete number of genes as a focused array. The present study has evaluated the reproducibility of the Ziplex system as applied to ovarian cancer research of genes shown to exhibit distinct expression profiles initially assessed by Affymetrix GeneChip analyses. METHODS: The new chemiluminescence-based Ziplex gene expression array technology was evaluated for the expression of 93 genes selected based on their Affymetrix GeneChip profiles as applied to ovarian cancer research. Probe design was based on the Affymetrix target sequence that favors the 3' UTR of transcripts in order to maximize reproducibility across platforms. Gene expression analysis was performed using the Ziplex Automated Workstation. Statistical analyses were performed to evaluate reproducibility of both the magnitude of expression and differences between normal and tumor samples by correlation analyses, fold change differences and statistical significance testing. RESULTS: Expressions of 82 of 93 (88.2%) genes were highly correlated (p < 0.01) in a comparison of the two platforms. Overall, 75 of 93 (80.6%) genes exhibited consistent results in normal versus tumor tissue comparisons for both platforms (p < 0.001). The fold change differences were concordant for 87 of 93 (94%) genes, where there was agreement between the platforms regarding statistical significance for 71 (76%) of 87 genes. There was a strong agreement between the two platforms as shown by comparisons of log2 fold differences of gene expression between tumor versus normal samples (R = 0.93) and by Bland-Altman analysis, where greater than 90% of expression values fell within the 95% limits of agreement. CONCLUSION: Overall concordance of gene expression patterns based on correlations, statistical significance between tumor and normal ovary data, and fold changes was consistent between the Ziplex and Affymetrix platforms. The reproducibility and ease-of-use of the technology suggests that the Ziplex array is a suitable platform for translational research.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Translational MedicineSame topicAdvanced Biosensing Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207