In our current study, we employed a microarray methodology to search for potential candidate genes that may discriminate aggressive cases of CLL according to the sex of the patient.
A significant number of light pulse- and blood feeding-regulated genes were most likely not identified in these assays because of limitations of the microarray methodology to detect mRNA of lower abundance.
We applied DNA microarrays methodology to analyse transcriptomic changes following skin exposure to different doses of 14 MeV neutron irradiation.
Extensive efforts to characterize the reproducibility of microarray methodologies and platforms have been carried out previously [21], [22], showing that careful attention to methods can yield predictable reproducibility.
The sensitivity of the microarray methodology with respect to the known pathogenic mutations was defined as the proportion of true positives detected by the microarray, while the specificity was defined as the proportion of true negatives detected.
We use high-resolution microarray methodology [ 37] to comparatively study gene expression for ~42,000 genes in diploid and allotetraploid cotton species at an early stage of fiber development.
The heterogeneity between ducts that was revealed in this study provides a cautionary note for interpretation of data from microdissection or microarray methodologies in which a small number of samples with only a few cells are used to characterize a tumor, since the heterogeneity of a tumor in vivo may not be reflected in such small samples [ 24, 25].
The heterogeneity between ducts of the same patient that was revealed in this study provides a cautionary note for interpretation of data from microdissection or microarray methodologies in which a small number of samples each with only a few cells are used to characterize a tumor, since the heterogeneity of a tumor in vivo may not be reflected in such small samples [ 24, 25].
Thus, we propose that peptide microarray methodologies are a powerful new tool for elucidating molecular interactions at chromatin.
Other studies have used similar numbers of proteins for comparison of ICAT and mRNA microarray methodologies (N = 245, 289, 425) [3]–[5].
