The same was true for including data of clinical and experimental studies, but, again, the comparison between results of PRP´s efficacy with these different methodologies revealed important results.
These different methodologies are briefly discussed in this chapter.
These different methodologies allowed us to analyze the binding to linear epitopes (PepSet™), as well as the binding between two molecules in their steric configuration (SPR).
When the authors compared the prognostic differences between the different methodologies, the ER+/ ESR1+ and ER−/ ESR1+ subgroups had similar clinical outcomes, and performed better than patients who were ER−/ ESR1− or ER+/ ESR1−, suggesting that RT-PCR assignment of ESR1 status was more prognostic and accurate than IHC for ER [ 11].
The results of the studies introduce a possibility to develop a usability evaluation framework that includes both formative and summative approaches, as the results show a high degree of consistency between the different methodologies.
These data are consistent with lesion studies in rodents and functional neuroimaging studies in humans, and illustrate the potential of CPA to bridge the gap between these very different methodologies.
Expression level of miRNAs determined from q-PCR and small RNA blot analysis did not correlate in certain cases and such differences between different methodologies have been noticed earlier when measuring the miRNA abundance [ 57- 59].
While the small overlap seems to be surprisingly low, small overlaps between interaction datasets are commonly observed, and may be explained by the large phylogenetic distance between these species, the different methodologies applied, the considerable false negative rate, and the incomplete sampling of each interactome.
Agreement between these two very different methodologies has great implications for their respective use in both molecular studies and clinical trials employing molecular biomarkers.
