Talk:Gene expression profiling

SAGE vs Microarray
Bringing SAGE in is interesting, but it remains a much less popular approach, probably because it takes much longer to set up. Tombadog (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure the focus on SuperSage really belongs in here. I only found 4 references to this technique on PubMed Tombadog (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Deep Sequencing
Somebody has raised the issue of "deep sequencing" as an expression profiling technique. Cool. I think the article should also mention DNA subtraction. The thing is, to mention these, we need to get our ducks in a row and provide references. Tombadog (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Renaming this article
Reading the first paragraph of this article I would strongly suggest to move the article to the title Gene expression profiling. RNA profiling might be more appropriate but is much less commonly used in the community.--Oleginger (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As you say, "expression profiling" is sort of short hand for measuring RNA levels to get at gene expression. If one calls it "RNA profiling", that sort of brings up the issue of what other things that are "expressed" might be profiled. I'm not sure there are any. Proteins are more "translated", DNA is "replicated", or reverse transcribed from RNA. So really, expression profiling is not a bad name for measuring DNA expression as RNA, since the word "expression" pretty well ties it down to RNA, don't you think?

Tombadog (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

While necessarily sounding fundamentalist about this, there are more than enough terminology wars in Biology, I cannot quite agree with your argument.
 * As a principal comment: the different "XYZ expression" terms are not used systematically correct: You find gene expression referring to RNA being expressed from DNA (one level further in the information flow). Protein expression on the other hand refers to the proteins themselves (same level). Interestingly, mRNA expression is sometimes used synonymously to gene expression but never to mean protein expression
 * Further, as you correctly say, we should represent common use of the terms. Nevertheless, I would argue in favour of avoiding ambiguity and addressing some of the fuzzy naming convention and sloppy use through Redirects. --Oleginger (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I did the deed. Well said, Oleginger.

Tombadog (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

New form of GSEA
We need real literature references for RssGsa or whatever it's called -- more than a link to source forge and a white paper written by the developer. We can't publish original research here in Wikipedia

Tombadog (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

comparison of NGS and microarrays?
Comparing NGS to microarrays, the introduction reads: "However, microarrays are far more common, accounting for 17,000 PubMed articles by 2006.[2]"

But could someone find the number of PubMed articles based on NGS, to compare 17,000 to whatever other number?

129.59.115.14 (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Dale S

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Redirect from Transcriptomics
I want to move forward on an old suggestion that transcriptomics redirect here instead of transcript. Does anyone want to weigh in? Jmeppley (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)