These methods are essentially identical to those we used to acquire and store biological samples derived from macaques.
Test RNA samples were prepared from clonally developing NC105.1-RFP NC105.1-RFPh, 4 h, 8 h, 12 h, 16 h and 20 h and hybridized against a cellsn biologicat RNA reference sample derived from mixing RNA from all six time points.
and samples derived from non-biological sources (e.g., nanoparticle formulations, small molecule drug, etc).. Hence, for the ISA-TAB-Nano specification, we consider a sample derived from biological sources as a biological specimen or biospecimen material type, while referencing samples derived from non-biological sources as material samples.
Immunoblotting was performed on six to eight biological samples per treatment group, each sample derived from only one rat randomly selected from separate litters per treatment group, as previously described by Rowell et al. (2005), with modifications.
An important extension to ISA-TAB required to support nanomaterials came from the need to distinguish samples derived from biological sources (e.g., from cell lines, tissues, body fluids, etc).
Our study was made possible by having datasets of both platforms assayed on the commercially available MAQC RNA samples, consisting of a high quality biological sample set derived from the human brain and human universal reference.
Samples derived from one day were treated as biological replica.
A negative control without cDNA, technical replicates on three independent cDNA samples (derived from the same RNA sample), and three independent biological experiments were performed in all cases.
For validation, we have chosen RNA samples derived from four time points of a published cardiomyocyte differentiation experiment as a well-characterized biological system [ 14].
All experiments were replicated on three independent biological samples, each derived from six plants (n = 3).
