Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 12395593

[Gene-expression analysis using DNA microarrays].

Abstract

Parallel to the efforts to unravel the human genome code, techniques are currently being developed to analyse the activity of all genes and proteins in a cell population or tissue. The most advanced of these functional genomic techniques is that used to study gene expression using DNA microarrays, also known as 'DNA chips'. This allows the expression of thousands of different genes to be compared in two different samples (for example, one from a sick person and one from a healthy one). Bioinformatics is essential in this technique. The expression profiles obtained in this way can be used to characterise complex biological situations (e.g., cell division and apoptosis) and diseases. There have already been reports on the opportunities in the diagnostic work-up for leukaemias and breast cancer. There are also applications on the more basic level, such as discovering precisely how the transcription apparatus works, and finding new genes and identifying their role. The use of microarrays in medicine is still in its infancy. It is anticipated that this and similar genome-wide analysis techniques will help in the elucidation of pathophysiological mechanisms, in making diagnoses and prognoses, and in monitoring treatment. The justifiable enthusiasm should, however, be accompanied by quality control, international standardisation and a critical approach towards the interpretation of results.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

G B Braam, H A R Bluyssen, E E Voest, H A Koomans. 2002-10-05. [Gene-expression analysis using DNA microarrays].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12395593/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Impact of adjustment for quality on results of metaanalyses of diagnostic accuracy.

BACKGROUND: We examined whether and to what extent different strategies of defining and incorporating quality of included studies affect the results of metaanalyses of diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: We evaluated the methodological quality of 487 diagnostic-accuracy studies in 30 systematic reviews with the QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic-Accuracy Studies) checklist. We applied 3 strategies that varied both in the definition of quality and in the statistical approach to incorporate the quality-assessment results into metaanalyses. We compared magnitudes of diagnostic odds ratios, widths of their confidence intervals, and changes in a hypothetical clinical decision between strategies. RESULTS: Following 2 definitions of quality, we concluded that only 70 or 72 of 487 studies were of "high quality". This small number was partly due to poor reporting of quality items. None of the strategies for accounting for differences in quality led systematically to accuracy estimates that were less optimistic than ignoring quality in metaanalyses. Limiting the review to high-quality studies considerably reduced the number of studies in all reviews, with wider confidence intervals as a result. In 18 reviews, the quality adjustment would have resulted in a different decision about the usefulness of the test. CONCLUSIONS: Although reporting the results of quality assessment of individual studies is necessary in systematic reviews, reader wariness is warranted regarding claims that differences in methodological quality have been accounted for. Obstacles for adjusting for quality in metaanalyses are poor reporting of design features and patient characteristics and the relatively low number of studies in most diagnostic reviews.

Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures↗