Performance comparison of two microarray platforms to assess differential gene expression in human monocyte and macrophage cells-4

Examined; Genes present in the top-left and bottom right quarters of each plots show changes in opposite direction. These genes are expected to overlap by chance.<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "Performance comparison of two microarray platforms to assess differential gene expression in human monocyte and macrophage cells"</p><p>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/9/302</p><p>BMC Genomics 2008;9():302-302.</p><p>Published online 25 Jun 2008</p><p>PMCID:PMC2464609.</p><p></p

Performance comparison of two microarray platforms to assess differential gene expression in human monocyte and macrophage cells-0

) of two different samples on Affymetrix (a) and Illumina (b) platforms. The blue line on each plot represents a regression line that best fits the plotted set of points. Both array types provide high inter-replicates reproducibility of the relative gene expression intensities.<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "Performance comparison of two microarray platforms to assess differential gene expression in human monocyte and macrophage cells"</p><p>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/9/302</p><p>BMC Genomics 2008;9():302-302.</p><p>Published online 25 Jun 2008</p><p>PMCID:PMC2464609.</p><p></p

Performance comparison of two microarray platforms to assess differential gene expression in human monocyte and macrophage cells-3

He list was constituted by selecting DEG (Pc < 0.05), then within this list genes were ranked according to decreasing fold change. The number of overlapping genes between lists was calculated for increasing list size. When the number of probes in the lists was approximately 3800, the number of overlapping genes reached a plateau. The "best 3800" set of probes was defined accordingly.<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "Performance comparison of two microarray platforms to assess differential gene expression in human monocyte and macrophage cells"</p><p>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/9/302</p><p>BMC Genomics 2008;9():302-302.</p><p>Published online 25 Jun 2008</p><p>PMCID:PMC2464609.</p><p></p

Performance comparison of two microarray platforms to assess differential gene expression in human monocyte and macrophage cells-5

) of two different samples on Affymetrix (a) and Illumina (b) platforms. The blue line on each plot represents a regression line that best fits the plotted set of points. Both array types provide high inter-replicates reproducibility of the relative gene expression intensities.<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "Performance comparison of two microarray platforms to assess differential gene expression in human monocyte and macrophage cells"</p><p>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/9/302</p><p>BMC Genomics 2008;9():302-302.</p><p>Published online 25 Jun 2008</p><p>PMCID:PMC2464609.</p><p></p

Safety and efficacy of IIb/IIIa inhibitors in combination with highly active oral antiplatelet regimens in acute coronary syndromes: A meta-analysis of pivotal trials

<p>The risk and benefit of GP-IIb/IIIa Inhibition (GPI) in combination with recent antiplatelet regimens in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) remain unassessed. The advent of fast-acting highly active oral P2Y₁₂ inhibitors questions the additional value and risk of their association with GPI. We studied the effect of GPI in combination with prasugrel and ticagrelor, compared to clopidogrel on major bleeding in pivotal randomized controlled trials in the setting of ACS, using a meta-analytic approach. A similar analysis, further including the comparison of a double versus standard dose clopidogrel regimen, was performed for the risk of the primary efficacy endpoint. The combination of GPI and recent P2Y₁₂ inhibitors was associated with a similar risk of bleeding as compared with GPI and the standard clopidogrel regimen (RR 0.92 [0.74; 1.13]). The benefit of recent regimens, including double dose clopidogrel, in reducing the primary ischemic endpoint (RR 0.86 [0.78; 0.94]) persisted in those treated with GPI. Although GPI use was associated with a consistent increase in the risk of bleeding in both recent (RR 1.27 [1.05–1.55]) and standard regimens (RR 2.01 [1.64–2.47]), the relative magnitude of such an increase was lower in association with prasugrel or ticagrelor as compared with clopidogrel. The risk of bleeding using a combination of GPI and oral antiplatelet regimens is mainly related to the use of GPI and not the oral antiplatelet regimen. Considering the absence of increased risk of bleeding and the persistence of the benefit of recent P2Y₁₂ regimens in combination with GPI as compared with the standard clopidogrel regimen, the use of such a combination within the guidelines is supported by our findings.</p