Hybridization thermodynamics of NimbleGen Microarrays

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>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 competin...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Posekany Alexandra, Leparc Germán G, Mueckstein Ulrike, Hofacker Ivo, Kreil David P
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2010-01-01
Series:BMC Bioinformatics
Online Access:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/11/35
id doaj-e2113ffc07f14fd38ffe765df54681c1
record_format Article
spelling doaj-e2113ffc07f14fd38ffe765df54681c12020-11-24T21:11:28ZengBMCBMC Bioinformatics1471-21052010-01-011113510.1186/1471-2105-11-35Hybridization thermodynamics of NimbleGen MicroarraysPosekany AlexandraLeparc Germán GMueckstein UlrikeHofacker IvoKreil David P<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>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 <it>T<sub>m </sub></it>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.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>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.</p> http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/11/35
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Posekany Alexandra
Leparc Germán G
Mueckstein Ulrike
Hofacker Ivo
Kreil David P
spellingShingle Posekany Alexandra
Leparc Germán G
Mueckstein Ulrike
Hofacker Ivo
Kreil David P
Hybridization thermodynamics of NimbleGen Microarrays
BMC Bioinformatics
author_facet Posekany Alexandra
Leparc Germán G
Mueckstein Ulrike
Hofacker Ivo
Kreil David P
author_sort Posekany Alexandra
title Hybridization thermodynamics of NimbleGen Microarrays
title_short 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_sort hybridization thermodynamics of nimblegen microarrays
publisher BMC
series BMC Bioinformatics
issn 1471-2105
publishDate 2010-01-01
description <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>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 <it>T<sub>m </sub></it>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.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>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.</p>
url http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/11/35
work_keys_str_mv AT posekanyalexandra hybridizationthermodynamicsofnimblegenmicroarrays
AT leparcgermang hybridizationthermodynamicsofnimblegenmicroarrays
AT muecksteinulrike hybridizationthermodynamicsofnimblegenmicroarrays
AT hofackerivo hybridizationthermodynamicsofnimblegenmicroarrays
AT kreildavidp hybridizationthermodynamicsofnimblegenmicroarrays
_version_ 1716753288578203648