Manduchi Elisabetta, Scearce L Marie, Brestelli John E, Grant Gregory R, Kaestner Klaus H, Stoeckert Christian J
Center for Bioinformatics, Univ. of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-6021, USA.
Physiol Genomics. 2002 Sep 3;10(3):169-79. doi: 10.1152/physiolgenomics.00120.2001.
In this report we evaluate three methods for labeling nucleic acids to be hybridized to a cDNA microarray: direct labeling, indirect amino-allyl labeling, and the dendrimer labeling method (Genisphere). The dendrimer method requires the smallest quantity of sample, 2.5 microg of total RNA compared with 20 microg with the direct or indirect methods. Therefore, we wanted to know whether the performance of the dendrimer method is comparable to the other methods, or whether significant information is lost. Performance can be considered in terms of sensitivity, dynamic range, and reproducibility of the quantitative signals for gene intensity. We compared the three labeling methods by generating three sets of eight self-to-self hybridizations using the same total RNA sample in all cases ("replicate study"). In our analysis, we controlled for the effects of print-tip and background subtraction biases. We also performed a smaller study, namely, a dilution series study with five dilution points per labeling method, to evaluate one aspect of predictive ability. From the replicate study, the dendrimer method appeared to perform as well, and often better, with respect to reproducibility and ability to detect expression. However, in the dilution series study, this method was outperformed by the other two in terms of predictive ability and did not perform very well. These findings are helping to guide our decisions on what labeling method to use for subsequent studies, based on the purpose of a specific study and its limitations in terms of available material.
在本报告中,我们评估了三种用于标记待与cDNA微阵列杂交的核酸的方法:直接标记法、间接氨基烯丙基标记法和树枝状大分子标记法(Genisphere)。树枝状大分子法所需的样品量最少,总RNA只需2.5微克,而直接法或间接法需要20微克。因此,我们想了解树枝状大分子法的性能是否与其他方法相当,或者是否会丢失重要信息。性能可从基因强度定量信号的灵敏度、动态范围和可重复性方面来考虑。我们通过在所有情况下使用相同的总RNA样品进行三组八次自杂交(“重复研究”)来比较这三种标记方法。在我们的分析中,我们控制了打印头和背景扣除偏差的影响。我们还进行了一项规模较小的研究,即每种标记方法有五个稀释点的稀释系列研究,以评估预测能力的一个方面。从重复研究来看,树枝状大分子法在可重复性和检测表达的能力方面表现良好,且常常更优。然而,在稀释系列研究中,该方法在预测能力方面不如其他两种方法,表现不是很好。这些发现有助于我们根据特定研究的目的及其在可用材料方面的局限性,来决定在后续研究中使用哪种标记方法。