Molecular Biotechnology

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 151–154 | Cite as

Optimal amounts of fluorescent dye improve expression microarray results in tumor specimens

  • Ali Naderi
  • Ahmed A. Ahmed
  • Yanzhong Wang
  • James D. Brenton
  • Carlos Caldas


Expression microarrays have great potential for clinical use but variability of the results represents a challenge for reliable practical application. The amount of fluorescent dye used in microarray experiments is a significant source of variability that has not been systematically studied. Here we demonstrate that the quantity of Cy3 dye affects microarray results performed on tumor specimens. Signal-to-noise ratios and coefficients of variation are significantly improved by increasing Cy3 to 150–180 pmol, but any further increase does not improve the data. In conclusion, optimal amounts of dye reduce variability and improve reliability of expression microarray experiments.

Index Entries

Expression microarray labeling 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Van De Vijver, M. J., He, Y. D., Van’ T Veer, Y. D., et al. (2002) A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 347, 34–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tan, P. K., Downey, T. J., Spitznagel E. L. Jr., et al. (2003) Evaluation of gene expression measurements from commercial microarray platforms. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 5676–5684.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jarvinen, A. K., Hautaniemi, S., Edgren, H., et al. (2004) Are data from different gene expression microarray platforms comparable? Genomics 83, 1164–1168.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    ’T Hoen, P. A. C., de Kort, F., van Ommen, G. J. B., and den Dunnen, J. T. (2003) Fluorescent labelling of cRNA for microarray applications. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, e20.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hughes, T. R., Mao, M., Jones, A. R., et al. (2001) Expression profiling using microarrays fabricated by an ink-jet oliginucleotide synthesizer. Nat. Biotechnol. 19, 342–347.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhao, H., Hastie, T., Whitfield, M. L., Borresen-Dale, A. L., and Jeffrey, S. S. (2002) Optimization and evaluation of T7 based RNA linear amplification protocols for cDNA microarray analysis. BMC Genomics 3:J31.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jia, M. H., Larossa, R. A., Lee, J. M., et al. (2000) Global expression profiling of yeast treated with an inhibitor of amino acid biosynthesis, sulfometuron methyl. Physiol. Genomics 3, 83–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yang, I. V., Chen, E., Hasseman, J. P., et al. (2002) Within the fold: assessing differential expression measures and reproducibility in microarray assays. Genome Biol. 3, 1–13.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Naderi, A., Ahmed, A. A., Barbosa-Morais, N. L., Aparicio, S., Brenton, J. D., and Caldas, C. (2004) Expression microarray reproducibility is improved by optimising purification steps in RNA amplification and labelling. BMC Genomics 5, 9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ali Naderi
    • 1
  • Ahmed A. Ahmed
  • Yanzhong Wang
  • James D. Brenton
  • Carlos Caldas
  1. 1.Cancer Genomics Program, Department of OncologyUniversity of Cambridge, Hutchison/MRC Research CenterCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations