Cargando…

Hybridization thermodynamics of NimbleGen Microarrays

BACKGROUND: While microarrays are the predominant method for gene expression profiling, probe signal variation is still an area of active research. Probe signal is sequence dependent and affected by probe-target binding strength and the competing formation of probe-probe dimers and secondary structu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mueckstein, Ulrike, Leparc, Germán G, Posekany, Alexandra, Hofacker, Ivo, Kreil, David P
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2823707/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20085625
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-11-35
_version_ 1782177668441047040
author Mueckstein, Ulrike
Leparc, Germán G
Posekany, Alexandra
Hofacker, Ivo
Kreil, David P
author_facet Mueckstein, Ulrike
Leparc, Germán G
Posekany, Alexandra
Hofacker, Ivo
Kreil, David P
author_sort Mueckstein, Ulrike
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: While microarrays are the predominant method for gene expression profiling, probe signal variation is still an area of active research. Probe signal is sequence dependent and affected by probe-target binding strength and the competing formation of probe-probe dimers and secondary structures in probes and targets. RESULTS: We demonstrate the benefits of an improved model for microarray hybridization and assess the relative contributions of the probe-target binding strength and the different competing structures. Remarkably, specific and unspecific hybridization were apparently driven by different energetic contributions: For unspecific hybridization, the melting temperature T(m )was the best predictor of signal variation. For specific hybridization, however, the effective interaction energy that fully considered competing structures was twice as powerful a predictor of probe signal variation. We show that this was largely due to the effects of secondary structures in the probe and target molecules. The predictive power of the strength of these intramolecular structures was already comparable to that of the melting temperature or the free energy of the probe-target duplex. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis illustrates the importance of considering both the effects of probe-target binding strength and the different competing structures. For specific hybridization, the secondary structures of probe and target molecules turn out to be at least as important as the probe-target binding strength for an understanding of the observed microarray signal intensities. Besides their relevance for the design of new arrays, our results demonstrate the value of improving thermodynamic models for the read-out and interpretation of microarray signals.
format Text
id pubmed-2823707
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-28237072010-02-18 Hybridization thermodynamics of NimbleGen Microarrays Mueckstein, Ulrike Leparc, Germán G Posekany, Alexandra Hofacker, Ivo Kreil, David P BMC Bioinformatics Research article BACKGROUND: While microarrays are the predominant method for gene expression profiling, probe signal variation is still an area of active research. Probe signal is sequence dependent and affected by probe-target binding strength and the competing formation of probe-probe dimers and secondary structures in probes and targets. RESULTS: We demonstrate the benefits of an improved model for microarray hybridization and assess the relative contributions of the probe-target binding strength and the different competing structures. Remarkably, specific and unspecific hybridization were apparently driven by different energetic contributions: For unspecific hybridization, the melting temperature T(m )was the best predictor of signal variation. For specific hybridization, however, the effective interaction energy that fully considered competing structures was twice as powerful a predictor of probe signal variation. We show that this was largely due to the effects of secondary structures in the probe and target molecules. The predictive power of the strength of these intramolecular structures was already comparable to that of the melting temperature or the free energy of the probe-target duplex. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis illustrates the importance of considering both the effects of probe-target binding strength and the different competing structures. For specific hybridization, the secondary structures of probe and target molecules turn out to be at least as important as the probe-target binding strength for an understanding of the observed microarray signal intensities. Besides their relevance for the design of new arrays, our results demonstrate the value of improving thermodynamic models for the read-out and interpretation of microarray signals. BioMed Central 2010-01-19 /pmc/articles/PMC2823707/ /pubmed/20085625 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-11-35 Text en Copyright ©2010 Mueckstein et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research article
Mueckstein, Ulrike
Leparc, Germán G
Posekany, Alexandra
Hofacker, Ivo
Kreil, David P
Hybridization thermodynamics of NimbleGen Microarrays
title Hybridization thermodynamics of NimbleGen Microarrays
title_full Hybridization thermodynamics of NimbleGen Microarrays
title_fullStr Hybridization thermodynamics of NimbleGen Microarrays
title_full_unstemmed Hybridization thermodynamics of NimbleGen Microarrays
title_short Hybridization thermodynamics of NimbleGen Microarrays
title_sort hybridization thermodynamics of nimblegen microarrays
topic Research article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2823707/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20085625
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-11-35
work_keys_str_mv AT muecksteinulrike hybridizationthermodynamicsofnimblegenmicroarrays
AT leparcgermang hybridizationthermodynamicsofnimblegenmicroarrays
AT posekanyalexandra hybridizationthermodynamicsofnimblegenmicroarrays
AT hofackerivo hybridizationthermodynamicsofnimblegenmicroarrays
AT kreildavidp hybridizationthermodynamicsofnimblegenmicroarrays