4.8 Article

A new method to remove hybridization bias for interspecies comparison of global gene expression profiles uncovers an association between mRNA sequence divergence and differential gene expression in Xenopus

Journal

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
Volume 34, Issue 1, Pages 185-200

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkj413

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH &HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [R01HD042572] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES [R43RR019815] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NCRR NIH HHS [R43 RR019815, R43 RR019815-01] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NICHD NIH HHS [HD42572, R01 HD042572] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The recent sequencing of a large number of Xenopus tropicalis expressed sequences has allowed development of a high-throughput approach to study Xenopus global RNA gene expression. We examined the global gene expression similarities and differences between the historically significant Xenopus laevis model system and the increasingly used X. tropicalis model system and assessed whether an X. tropicalis microarray platform can be used for X. laevis. These closely related species were also used to investigate a more general question: is there an association between mRNA sequence divergence and differences in gene expression levels? We carried out a comprehensive comparison of global gene expression profiles using microarrays of different tissues and developmental stages of X. laevis and X. tropicalis. We (i) show that the X. tropicalis probes provide an efficacious microarray platform for X. laevis, (ii) describe methods to compare inter-species mRNA profiles that correct differences in hybridization efficiency and (iii) show independently of hybridization bias that as mRNA sequence divergence increases between X. laevis and X. tropicalis differences in mRNA expression levels also increase.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available