When tested with CL-fed chicken muscle tissues, the protein microarray assay had higher sensitivity (0.9 ng/g) than the ci-ELISA (0.1 ng/g) for detection of CL residues.
Although transcriptional profiles in such target disease tissues/cells are ideal for such analyses, the complexity of procuring such tissue biopsies/cells and the low amount of RNA from these specimens for standard microarray assays has made whole blood, a practical and an attractive surrogate tissue in clinical research [3], [4], [5], [6], [7].
Indeed, the quality of data generated by microarray assays has been questioned [ 1, 2].
The ChIP-chip analyses also showed that only one (STM2938) of the 13 newly-identified, potential σ-dependent operons from the DNA microarray assays has a σ DNA binding site associated with it (Table 3), suggesting that the other 12 operons may be indirectly regulated by σ.
Microarray assays have been widely adopted in cancer marker exploration and expression profiling of tumor genes [ 3, 4].
To examine the results for all 60 miRNAs on one plot, we cannot simply plot qPCR Ct values versus microarray signals for all miRNAs in all tissues, because both the qPCR and microarray assays have differential sensitivities to different miRNAs.
To meet this challenge, hybridization-based microarray assays have been developed that are capable of measuring variation in the expression of hundreds-to-thousands of genes in multiple samples in a single experiment [ 12, 13].
Although Ach et al [ 41] reported good correlations (r > 0.9) in 53/60 miRNAs when comparing microarray (Agilent) and individual TaqMan qPCR assays (Applied Biosystems), they could not compare all 60 miRNAs in one plot because qPCR and microarray assays have differential sensitivities to different miRNAs.
As shown in Figure 4, a total of 3028 genes with a ratio lower than 2 folds (-1 < log2 < 1) using the cDNA microarray assays had a ratio greater than 2 folds (log2 > 1 or < -1) using the SSH/microarray assays.
