|
Comparison of different measures for each of the 3 kits assessed in this study. |
|||||||
| Stage |
Parameters |
One Cycle |
Rank |
BioArray |
Rank |
Superscript |
Rank |
|
|
|||||||
| Labeling Protocol |
cRNA yield (ug)* |
54.6 ± 0.6 |
2 |
43.1 ± 2.4 |
3 |
86.3 ± 10.9 |
1 |
| Reproducibility |
1 |
2 |
3 |
||||
| Peak range cDNA product sizes (bases) |
100 – 2000 |
1 |
800 |
3 |
750–2000 |
2 |
|
| Average fragment length (bases) |
100 |
1 |
125 |
1 |
100 |
1 |
|
| Fragmentation cRNA yield (ug)* |
9.2 ± 4.3 |
1 |
4.6 ± 1.2 |
2 |
4.5 ± 1.3 |
2 |
|
| Total time labeling reaction |
22.5 |
1 |
23.5 |
3 |
22.75 |
2 |
|
| Number of steps to labeling reaction |
7 |
1 |
11 |
2 |
6 |
1 |
|
| Cost per labeling reaction |
$115.00 |
3 |
$106.00 |
2 |
$95.00 |
1 |
|
| Signal measures |
% of Present* |
38.6 ± 0.7 |
1 |
36.8 ± 5.4 |
2 |
34.7 ± 6.4 |
3 |
| Scaling Factor* |
16.6 ± 7.7 |
3 |
13.7 ± 1.9 |
1 |
14.0 ± 1.4 |
2 |
|
| Median array raw intensity* |
143.1 ± 8.7 |
2 |
131.6 ± 33.6 |
3 |
168.6 ± 47.0 |
1 |
|
| Mean array raw intensity* |
1042.6 ± 34.3 |
3 |
1160.7 ± 127.5 |
1 |
1104.6 ± 73.5 |
2 |
|
| Background* |
37.4 ± 3.8 |
1 |
41.8 ± 8.6 |
2 |
49.9 ± 21.9 |
3 |
|
| Raw Q (Noise)* |
1.23 ± 0.2 |
1 |
1.4 ± 0.5 |
2 |
1.7 ± 0.8 |
3 |
|
| Number Present (P) |
21099 ± 389 |
1 |
20119 ± 2962 |
2 |
18953 ± 3477 |
3 |
|
| Number Absent (A) |
32744 ± 360 |
3372 ± 2933 |
34846 ± 3461 |
||||
| Number Marginal (M) |
832 ± 81 |
1 |
834 ± 13 |
2 |
877 ± 16 |
3 |
|
| Average Signal (P) |
2550.4 ± 125.4 |
3 |
3054.3 ± 660.8 |
2 |
3074.7 ± 451.1 |
1 |
|
| Average Signal (A) |
90.5 ± 12.5 |
88.8 ± 35.3 |
143.9 ± 42.7 |
||||
| Average Signal (M) |
295.5 ± 36.0 |
279.5 ± 105.9 |
430.3 ± 121.6 |
||||
| Average CV on GC-RMA normalized signal (All 3) |
15.7% |
18.0% |
16.0% |
||||
| Average CV on GC-RMA normalized signal (Replicates only) |
11.0% |
1 |
12.1% |
2 |
12.3% |
3 |
|
| Internal Control genes |
β-actin/GAPDH ratios |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|||
| rRNA signal |
1 |
3 |
2 |
||||
| Total score |
30 |
41 |
40 |
||||
|
Several criteria were evaluated for each stage in the generation of labeled target and each afforded a score relative to performance 1 = good, 3 = worst. | |||||||
Lonergan et al. BMC Biotechnology 2007 7:24 doi:10.1186/1472-6750-7-24 |
|||||||