Application of affymetrix array and massively parallel signature sequencing for identification of genes involved in prostate cancer progression

BACKGROUND: Affymetrix GeneChip Array and Massively Parallel Signature Sequencing (MPSS) are two high throughput methodologies used to profile transcriptomes. Each method has certain strengths and weaknesses; however, no comparison has been made between the data derived from Affymetrix arrays and MPSS. In this study, two lineage-related prostate cancer cell lines, LNCaP and C4-2, were used for transcriptome analysis with the aim of identifying genes associated with prostate cancer progression. METHODS: Affymetrix GeneChip array and MPSS analyses were performed. Data was analyzed with GeneSpring 6.2 and in-house perl scripts. Expression array results were verified with RT-PCR. RESULTS: Comparison of the data revealed that both technologies detected genes the other did not. In LNCaP, 3,180 genes were only detected by Affymetrix and 1,169 genes were only detected by MPSS. Similarly, in C4-2, 4,121 genes were only detected by Affymetrix and 1,014 genes were only detected by MPSS. Analysis of the combined transcriptomes identified 66 genes unique to LNCaP cells and 33 genes unique to C4-2 cells. Expression analysis of these genes in prostate cancer specimens showed CA1 to be highly expressed in bone metastasis but not expressed in primary tumor and EPHA7 to be expressed in normal prostate and primary tumor but not bone metastasis. CONCLUSION: Our data indicates that transcriptome profiling with a single methodology will not fully assess the expression of all genes in a cell line. A combination of transcription profiling technologies such as DNA array and MPSS provides a more robust means to assess the expression profile of an RNA sample. Finally, genes that were differentially expressed in cell lines were also differentially expressed in primary prostate cancer and its metastases

New Directions in the Development of Population Estimates in the United States?

The advent of a continuously updated Master Area File (MAF) following the 2000 census represents an information resource that can be tapped for purposes of developing timely, cost-effective, and precise population estimates for even the smallest of geographical units (e.g., census blocks). We argue that the MAF can be enhanced (EMAF) for these purposes. In support of our argument we describe a set of activities needed to develop EMAF, each of which is well within the current capabilities of the U.S. Census Bureau and discuss various costs and benefits of each. We also describe how EMAF would provide population estimates containing a wide range of demographic (e.g., age, race, and sex) and socio-economic characteristics (e.g., educational attainment, income, and employment). As such, it could largely negate and eliminate the need for many of the traditional demographic methods of population estimation and possibly reduce the number of sample surveys. We identify important challenges that must be surmounted in order to realize EMAF and make suggestions for doing so. We conclude by noting that the idea of the EMAF could be of interest to other countries with MAF files and strong administrative records systems that, like the United States, are facing the challenge of producing good population information in the face of increasing census costs

Application of affymetrix array and massively parallel signature sequencing for identification of genes involved in prostate cancer progression

Abstract Background Affymetrix GeneChip Array and Massively Parallel Signature Sequencing (MPSS) are two high throughput methodologies used to profile transcriptomes. Each method has certain strengths and weaknesses; however, no comparison has been made between the data derived from Affymetrix arrays and MPSS. In this study, two lineage-related prostate cancer cell lines, LNCaP and C4-2, were used for transcriptome analysis with the aim of identifying genes associated with prostate cancer progression. Methods Affymetrix GeneChip array and MPSS analyses were performed. Data was analyzed with GeneSpring 6.2 and in-house perl scripts. Expression array results were verified with RT-PCR. Results Comparison of the data revealed that both technologies detected genes the other did not. In LNCaP, 3,180 genes were only detected by Affymetrix and 1,169 genes were only detected by MPSS. Similarly, in C4-2, 4,121 genes were only detected by Affymetrix and 1,014 genes were only detected by MPSS. Analysis of the combined transcriptomes identified 66 genes unique to LNCaP cells and 33 genes unique to C4-2 cells. Expression analysis of these genes in prostate cancer specimens showed CA1 to be highly expressed in bone metastasis but not expressed in primary tumor and EPHA7 to be expressed in normal prostate and primary tumor but not bone metastasis. Conclusion Our data indicates that transcriptome profiling with a single methodology will not fully assess the expression of all genes in a cell line. A combination of transcription profiling technologies such as DNA array and MPSS provides a more robust means to assess the expression profile of an RNA sample. Finally, genes that were differentially expressed in cell lines were also differentially expressed in primary prostate cancer and its metastases.</p

Minimum information specification for in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry experiments (MISFISHIE).

One purpose of the biomedical literature is to report results in sufficient detail that the methods of data collection and analysis can be independently replicated and verified. Here we present reporting guidelines for gene expression localization experiments: the minimum information specification for in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry experiments (MISFISHIE). MISFISHIE is modeled after the Minimum Information About a Microarray Experiment (MIAME) specification for microarray experiments. Both guidelines define what information should be reported without dictating a format for encoding that information. MISFISHIE describes six types of information to be provided for each experiment: experimental design, biomaterials and treatments, reporters, staining, imaging data and image characterizations. This specification has benefited the consortium within which it was developed and is expected to benefit the wider research community. We welcome feedback from the scientific community to help improve our proposal