↓ Skip to main content

How to decide? Different methods of calculating gene expression from short oligonucleotide array data will give different results

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, March 2006
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
126 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 Mendeley
citeulike
11 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
How to decide? Different methods of calculating gene expression from short oligonucleotide array data will give different results
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, March 2006
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-7-137
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frank F Millenaar, John Okyere, Sean T May, Martijn van Zanten, Laurentius ACJ Voesenek, Anton JM Peeters

Abstract

Short oligonucleotide arrays for transcript profiling have been available for several years. Generally, raw data from these arrays are analysed with the aid of the Microarray Analysis Suite or GeneChip Operating Software (MAS or GCOS) from Affymetrix. Recently, more methods to analyse the raw data have become available. Ideally all these methods should come up with more or less the same results. We set out to evaluate the different methods and include work on our own data set, in order to test which method gives the most reliable results.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 3 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Brazil 2 2%
United States 2 2%
Germany 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 107 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 38 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 22%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 6%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 14 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 70 57%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 6%
Computer Science 7 6%
Mathematics 2 2%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 16 13%