↓ Skip to main content

RNA quality in frozen breast cancer samples and the influence on gene expression analysis – a comparison of three evaluation methods using microcapillary electrophoresis traces

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Molecular and Cell Biology, May 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
95 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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
RNA quality in frozen breast cancer samples and the influence on gene expression analysis – a comparison of three evaluation methods using microcapillary electrophoresis traces
Published in
BMC Molecular and Cell Biology, May 2007
DOI 10.1186/1471-2199-8-38
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carina Strand, Johan Enell, Ingrid Hedenfalk, Mårten Fernö

Abstract

Assessing RNA quality is essential for gene expression analysis, as the inclusion of degraded samples may influence the interpretation of expression levels in relation to biological and/or clinical parameters. RNA quality can be analyzed by agarose gel electrophoresis, UV spectrophotometer, or microcapillary electrophoresis traces, and can furthermore be evaluated using different methods. No generally accepted recommendations exist for which technique or evaluation method is the best choice. The aim of the present study was to use microcapillary electrophoresis traces from the Bioanalyzer to compare three methods for evaluating RNA quality in 24 fresh frozen invasive breast cancer tissues: 1) Manual method = subjective evaluation of the electropherogram, 2) Ratio Method = the ratio between the 28S and 18S peaks, and 3) RNA integrity number (RIN) method = objective evaluation of the electropherogram. The results were also related to gene expression profiling analyses using 27K oligonucleotide microarrays, unsupervised hierarchical clustering analysis and ontological mapping.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 3%
Germany 1 1%
Malaysia 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 77 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 21%
Student > Master 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 10 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 36 42%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 13%
Engineering 4 5%
Chemistry 3 3%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 14 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 29 May 2013.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from BMC Molecular and Cell Biology
#935
of 1,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,588
of 83,092 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Molecular and Cell Biology
#20
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,233 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 83,092 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.