Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
10
pubmed:dateCreated
2006-9-22
pubmed:abstractText
Large-scale RNA interference (RNAi)-based analyses, very much as other 'omic' approaches, have inherent rates of false positives and negatives. The variability in the standards of care applied to validate results from these studies, if left unchecked, could eventually begin to undermine the credibility of RNAi as a powerful functional approach. This Commentary is an invitation to an open discussion started among various users of RNAi to set forth accepted standards that would insure the quality and accuracy of information in the large datasets coming out of genome-scale screens.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Oct
pubmed:issn
1548-7091
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
3
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
777-9
pubmed:dateRevised
2009-11-19
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
2006
pubmed:articleTitle
Minimizing the risk of reporting false positives in large-scale RNAi screens.
pubmed:affiliation
Cenix BioScience GmbH, Tatzberg 47, Dresden, 10307, Germany. echeverri@cenix-bioscience.com
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article