Toxicogenomic approaches in developmental toxicology testing

Methods in Molecular Biology

Volumn 947, Issue , 2013, Pages 451-473

  Robinson, Joshua F ^a   Piersma, Aldert H ^a  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Developmental toxicity; Teratogenicity; Toxicogenomics

Indexed keywords

EID: 84871899252     PISSN: 10643745     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-62703-131-8_31     Document Type: Review

References (120)

1. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2010) OECD Activities to Explore and Evaluate Regulatory Application of Toxicogenomics and Molecular Screening Assays. http://www.oecd.org/doc ument/29/0, 3343, en-2649-34377-347046 69-1-1-1-1, 00.html. Accessed 30 July 2010
2. Metzker ML (2010) Sequencing technologies-the next generation. Nat Rev Genet 11:31-46. doi: nrg2626 (pii)10.1038/nrg2626
3. Kerr MK (2003) Design considerations for efficient and effective microarray studies. Biometrics 59:822-828
4. Kerr MK (2003) Experimental design to make the most of microarray studies. Methods Mol Biol 224:137-147. doi: 1-59259-364-X-137 (pii)10.1385/1-59259-364-X:137
5. Liu P, Hwang JT (2007) Quick calculation for sample size while controlling false discovery rate with application to microarray analysis. Bioinformatics 23:739-746. doi: btl664 (pii)10.1093/bioinformatics/btl664
6. Shao Y, Tseng CH (2007) Sample size calculation with dependence adjustment for FDR-control in microarray studies. Stat Med 26:4219-4237. doi: 10.1002/sim.2862
7. Page GP et al (2006) The PowerAtlas: a power and sample size atlas for microarray experimental design and research. BMC Bioinformatics 7:84. doi: 1471-2105-7-84 (pii)10.1186/1471-2105-7-84
8. Qiu W, Lee MLT, Whitmore GA (2008) Sample size and power calculation in microar-ray studies using the sizepower package. Technical report, Bioconductor
9. Pounds S, Cheng C (2005) Statistical development and evaluation of microarray gene expression datafilters. J Comput Biol 12:482- 495. doi: 10.1089/cmb.2005.12.482
10. Allison DB et al (2006) Microarray data analysis: from disarray to consolidation and consensus. Nat Rev Genet 7:55-65. doi: nrg1749 (pii)10.1038/nrg1749
11. Pavlidis P (2003) Using ANOVA for gene selection from microarray studies of the nervous system. Methods 31:282-289. doi: S1046202303001579 (pii)
12. Pronk TE et al (2011) Effects of pooling RNA from samples treated with different compounds for determining class specific bio-markers and processes in toxicogenomics. Toxicol In Vitro 25(8):1841-1847
13. White CA, Salamonsen LA (2005) A guide to issues in microarray analysis: application to endometrial biology. Reproduction 130:1-13
14. Gilbert I et al (2010) Providing a stable methodological basis for comparing transcript abundance of developing embryos using microarrays. Mol Hum Reprod 16:601-616. doi: gaq038 (pii)10.1093/molehr/gaq038
15. Kiewe P et al (2009) Prediction of qualitative outcome of oligonucleotide microarray hybridization by measurement of RNA integrity using the 2100 Bioanalyzer capillary elec-trophoresis system. Ann Hematol 88:1177-1183. doi: 10.1007/s00277-009-0751-5
16. Ma W et al (2010) Effect of long-term storage in TRIzol on microarray-based gene expression profiling. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 19:2445-2452. doi: 1055-9965.EPI-10-0565 (pii)10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0565
17. Opitz L et al (2010) Impact of RNA degradation on gene expression profiling. BMC Med Genomics 3:36. doi: 1755-8794-3-36 (pii)10.1186/1755-8794-3- 36
18. Mutter GL et al (2004) Comparison of frozen and RNALater solid tissue storage methods for use in RNA expression microarrays. BMC Genomics 5:88. doi: 1471-2164-5-88 (pii)10.1186/1471-2164-5-88
19. Wen Z et al (2010) Evaluation of gene expression data generated from expired Affymetrix GeneChip(R) microarrays using MAQC reference RNA samples. BMC Bioinformatics 11(Suppl 6):S10. doi: 1471-2105-11-S6-S10 (pii)10.1186/1471- 2105-11-S6-S10
20. Sawada A et al (2007) Evaluation of amplified cRNA targets for oligonucleotide microar-rays. Anal Bioanal Chem 387:2645-2654. doi: 10.1007/s00216-007-1125-2
21. Wang E (2005) RNA amplification for successful gene profiling analysis. J Transl Med 3:28. doi: 1479-5876-3-28 (pii)10.1186/1479-5876-3-28
22. Ji W et al (2004) A method for gene expression analysis by oligonucleotide arrays from minute biological materials. Anal Biochem 331:329-339. doi: 10.1016/j. ab.2004.03.039S0003269704002714 (pii)
23. Robert C (2010) Microarray analysis of gene expression during early development: a cautionary overview. Reproduction 140(6):787-801
24. Duncan FE and Schultz RM (2010) Gene expression profiling of mouse oocytes and preimplantation embryos. Methods Enzymol 477:457-480.
25. Sawada H, Taniguchi K, Takami K (2006) Improved toxicogenomic screening for drug-induced phospholipidosis using a multiplexed quantitative gene expression ArrayPlate assay. Toxicol In Vitro 20:1506-1513. doi: S0887-2333(06)00098-1 (pii)10.1016/j. tiv.2006.05.009
26. Hardiman G (2004) Microarray platforms- comparisons and contrasts. Pharmacogenomics 5:487-502. doi: PGS050506 (pii)10.1517/14622416.5.5.487
27. Woo Y et al (2004) A comparison of cDNA, oligonucleotide, and Affymetrix GeneChip gene expression microarray platforms. J Biomol Tech 15:276-284. doi: 15/4/276 (pii)
28. Guo L et al (2006) Rat toxicogenomic study reveals analytical consistency across microarray platforms. Nat Biotechnol 24:1162-1169
29. Bosotti R et al (2007) Cross platform microar-ray analysis for robust identification of differentially expressed genes. BMC Bioinformatics 8(Suppl 1):S5. doi: 1471-2105-8-S1-S5 (pii)10.1186/1471-2105-8-S1-S5
30. Pedotti P et al (2008) Can subtle changes in gene expression be consistently detected with different microarray platforms? BMC Genomics 9:124. doi: 1471-2164-9-124 (pii)10.1186/1471-2164-9-124
31. Patterson TA et al (2006) Performance comparison of one-color and two-color platforms within the MicroArray Quality Control (MAQC) project. Nat Biotechnol 24:1140- 1150. doi: nbt1242 (pii)10.1038/nbt1242
32. Han T et al (2006) Improvement in the reproducibility and accuracy of DNA microar-ray quantification by optimizing hybridization conditions. BMC Bioinformatics 7(Suppl 2):S17. doi: 1471-2105-7-S2-S17 (pii)10.1186/1471-2105-7- S2-S17
33. Shi L et al (2008) Reproducible and reliable microarray results through quality control: good laboratory proficiency and appropriate data analysis practices are essential. Curr Opin Biotechnol 19:10-18. doi: S0958-1669(07)00145-0 (pii)10.1016/j.copbio.2007.11.003
34. Arteaga-Salas JM et al (2008) An overview of image-processing methods for Affymetrix GeneChips. Brief Bioinform 9:25-33. doi: bbm055 (pii)10.1093/bib/ bbm055
35. Yang YH, Buckley MJ, Speed TP (2001) Analysis of cDNA microarray images. Brief Bioinform 2:341-349
36. Forster T, Roy D, Ghazal P (2003) Experiments using microarray technology: limitations and standard operating procedures. J Endocrinol 178:195-204
37. Maastricht University, BIGCAT (2011) http://www.arrayanalysis.org/
38. Smyth GK, Speed T (2003) Normalization of cDNA microarray data. Methods 31:265- 273. doi: S1046202303001555 (pii)
39. Bolstad BM et al (2003) A comparison of normalization methods for high density oli-gonucleotide array data based on variance and bias. Bioinformatics 19:185-193
40. Vardhanabhuti S et al (2006) A comparison of statistical tests for detecting differential expression using Affymetrix oligonucleotide microarrays. OMICS 10:555-566. doi: 10.1089/omi.2006.10.555
41. Seo J, Gordish-Dressman H, Hoffman EP (2006) An interactive power analysis tool for microarray hypothesis testing and generation. Bioinformatics 22:808-814. doi: btk052 (pii)10.1093/bioinformatics/btk052
42. Zakharkin SO et al (2005) Sources of variation in Affymetrix microarray experiments. BMC Bioinformatics 6:214. doi: 1471-2105-6-214 (pii)10.1186/1471- 2105-6-214
43. Lim WK et al (2007) Comparative analysis of microarray normalization procedures: effects on reverse engineering gene networks. Bioinformatics 23:i282-i288. doi: 23/13/i282 (pii)10.1093/bioinformatics/btm201
44. Qin LX, Self SG (2006) The clustering of regression models method with applications in gene expression data. Biometrics 62:526- 533. doi: BIOM498 (pii)10.1111/j.1541-0420.2005.00498.x
45. Chen YJ et al (2003) Normalization methods for analysis of microarray gene-expression data. J Biopharm Stat 13:57-74
46. Yang YH et al (2002) Normalization for cDNA microarray data: a robust composite method addressing single and multiple slide systematic variation. Nucleic Acids Res 30:e15
47. Wu W et al (2005) Comparison of normalization methods for CodeLink Bioarray data. BMC Bioinformatics 6:309. doi: 1471-2105-6-309 (pii)10.1186/1471-2105-6-309
48. Chen C et al (2011) Removing batch effects in analysis of expression microarray data: an evaluation of six batch adjustment methods. PLoS One 6:e17238. doi: 10.1371/journal. pone.0017238
49. Cui X, Churchill GA (2003) Statistical tests for differential expression in cDNA microar-ray experiments. Genome Biol 4(4):210
50. Demirkale CY, Nettleton D, Maiti T (2010) Linear mixed model selection for false discovery rate control in microarray data analysis. Biometrics 66:621-629. doi: BIOM1286 (pii)10.1111/j.1541-0420.2009.01286.x
51. Kendziorski CM et al (2003) On parametric empirical Bayes methods for comparing multiple groups using replicated gene expression profiles. Stat Med 22:3899-3914. doi: 10.1002/sim.1548
52. Jeanmougin M et al (2010) Should we abandon the t -test in the analysis of gene expression microarray data: a comparison of variance modeling strategies. PLoS One 5:e12336. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0012336
53. Qian HR, Huang S (2005) Comparison of false discovery rate methods in identifying genes with differential expression. Genomics 86:495-503. doi: S0888-7543(05)00161-8 (pii)10.1016/j.ygeno.2005.06.007
54. Cheng C et al (2004) Statistical significance threshold criteria for analysis of microarray gene expression data. Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol 3:Article36. doi: 10.2202/1544-6115.1064
55. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol 57:289-300
56. Stegle O et al (2010) A robust Bayesian two-sample test for detecting intervals of differential gene expression in microarray time series. J Comput Biol 17:355-367. doi: 10.1089/cmb.2009.0175
57. Liu A et al (2002) Block principal component analysis with application to gene microarray data classification. Stat Med 21:3465-3474. doi: 10.1002/sim.1263
58. Cho JH et al (2004) Gene selection and classification from microarray data using kernel machine. FEBS Lett 571:93-98. doi: 10.1016/j.febslet.2004.05. 087S001457 9304008142 (pii)
59. Pedotti P et al (2008) Can subtle changes in gene expression be consistently detected with different microarray platforms? BMC Genomics 9:124. doi: 1471-2164-9-124 (pii)10.1186/1471-2164-9-124
60. Shi L et al (2006) The MicroArray Quality Control (MAQC) project shows inter- and intraplatform reproducibility of gene expression measurements. Nat Biotechnol 24:1151- 1161. doi: nbt1239 (pii)10.1038/nbt1239
61. Chen JJ et al (2007) Reproducibility of microarray data: a further analysis of microar-ray quality control (MAQC) data. BMC Bioinformatics 8:412. doi: 1471-2105-8-412 (pii) 10.1186/1471-2105-8-412
62. Prasad TV, Ahson SI (2006) Visualization of microarray gene expression data. Bioinformation 1:141-145
63. Saeed AI et al (2003) TM4: a free, open-source system for microarray data management and analysis. Biotechniques 34:374-378
64. Shlens J (2009) A tutorial on principal component analysis. http://www.snl.salk. edu/~shlens/pca.pdf. Accessed 26 Oct 2011
65. Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45(1):5-32. doi: 10.1023/A:1010933404324
66. Cortes C, Vapnik V (1995) Support-vector networks. Mach Learn 20(3):273-297
67. van Dartel DA, Piersma AH (2011) The embryonic stem cell test combined with toxi-cogenomics as an alternative testing model for the assessment of developmental toxicity. Reprod Toxicol 32:235-244. doi: S0890-6238(11)00149-3 (pii)10.1016/j. reprotox.2011.04.008
68. van Dartel DA et al (2010) Evaluation of developmental toxicant identification using gene expression profiling in embryonic stem cell differentiation cultures. Toxicol Sci 119(1):126-134. doi: kfq291 (pii)10.1093/toxsci/kfq291
69. Burgoon LD, Zacharewski TR (2008) Bioinformatics: databasing and gene annotation. Methods Mol Biol 460:145-157
70. da Huang W et al (2008) DAVID gene ID conversion tool. Bioinformation 2:428-430
71. U.S.EPA (2009) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's strategic plan for evaluating the toxicity of chemicals. EPA100/K-09/001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
72. Bhattacharya S et al (2011) Toxicity testing in the 21 century: defining new risk assessment approaches based on perturbation of intracel-lular toxicity pathways. PLoS One 6(6): e20887
73. da Huang W et al (2007) DAVID bioinfor-matics resources: expanded annotation database and novel algorithms to better extract biology from large gene lists. Nucleic Acids Res 35:W169-W175. doi: gkm415 (pii)10.1093/nar/gkm415
74. Reimand J, Arak T, Vilo J (2011) g:Profiler-a web server for functional interpretation of gene lists (2011 update). Nucleic Acids Res 39:W307-W315. doi: gkr378 (pii)10.1093/nar/gkr378
75. Chi SM et al (2011) ADGO 2.0: interpreting microarray data and list of genes using composite annotations. Nucleic Acids Res 39:302- 306. doi: gkr392 (pii)10.1093/nar/gkr392
76. Salomonis N et al (2007) GenMAPP 2: new features and resources for pathway analysis. BMC Bioinformatics 8:217. doi: 1471-2105-8-217 (pii)10.1186/1471-2105-8-217
77. Zeeberg BR et al (2003) GoMiner: a resource for biological interpretation of genomic and proteomic data. Genome Biol 4:R28
78. Song S, Black MA (2008) Microarray-based gene set analysis: a comparison of current methods. BMC Bioinformatics 9:502
79. Subramanian A et al (2005) Gene set enrichment analysis: a knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102:15545- 15550. doi: 0506580102 (pii)10.1073/pnas. 0506580102
80. Boorsma A et al (2005) T-profiler: scoring the activity of predefined groups of genes using gene expression data. Nucleic Acids Res 33:W592-W595. doi: 33/suppl-2/W592 (pii)10.1093/nar/gki484
81. Ho Sui SJ et al (2005) oPOSSUM: identification of over-represented transcription factor binding sites in co-expressed genes. Nucleic Acids Res 33:3154-3164. doi: 33/10/3154 (pii)10.1093/nar/gki624
82. Lenhard B, Wasserman WW (2002) TFBS: computational framework for transcription factor binding site analysis. Bioinformatics 18:1135-1136
83. Yang L, Allen BC, Thomas RS (2007) BMDExpress: a software tool for the benchmark dose analyses of genomic data. BMC Genomics 8:387. doi: 1471-2164-8-387 (pii)10.1186/1471-2164-8-387
84. Burgoon LD, Zacharewski TR (2008) Automated quantitative dose-response modeling and point of departure determination for large toxicogenomic and high-throughput screening data sets. Toxicol Sci 104:412-418. doi: kfn083 (pii)10.1093/toxsci/kfn083
85. Yu X et al (2006) A system-based approach to interpret dose- and time-dependent microar-ray data: quantitative integration of gene ontology analysis for risk assessment. Toxicol Sci 92:560-577. doi: kfj184 (pii)10.1093/toxsci/kfj184
86. Brazma A et al (2001) Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME)-toward standards for microarray data. Nat Genet 29:365-371. doi: 10.1038/ng1201-365 ng1201-365 (pii)
87. Edgar R, Domrachev M, Lash AE (2002) Gene expression omnibus: NCBI gene expression and hybridization array data repository. Nucleic Acids Res 30:207-210
88. Autio R et al (2009) Comparison of Affymetrix data normalization methods using 6, 926 experiments acrossfive array generations. BMC Bioinformatics 10(Suppl 1):S24. doi: 1471-2105-10-S1-S24 (pii)10.1186/1471-2105-10-S1-S24
89. NCBI HomoloGene (2011) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/homologene/
90. Boverhof DR et al (2006) Comparative toxi-cogenomic analysis of the hepatotoxic effects of TCDD in Sprague Dawley rats and C57BL/6 mice. Toxicol Sci 94:398-416. doi: k fl100 (pii)10.1093/toxsci/k fl100
91. Robinson JF et al (2011) Comparison of MeHg-induced toxicogenomic responses across in vivo and invitro models used in developmental toxicology. Reprod Toxicol 32(2):180-188
92. Euling S et al (2011) Use of genomic data in risk assessment case study: II. Evaluation of the dibutyl phthalate toxicogenomic data set. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. doi: S0041-008X(11)00236-5 (pii)10.1016/j.taap. 2011.06.014
93. Kienhuis AS et al (2011) Application of toxi-cogenomics in hepatic systems toxicology for risk assessment: acetaminophen as a case study. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 250:96-107 doi: S0041-008X(10)00398-4(pii)10.1016/j.taap.2010.10. 013
94. Robinson JF et al (2010) Methylmercury induced toxicogenomic response in C57 and SWV mouse embryos undergoing neural tube closure. Reprod Toxicol 30:284-291. doi: S0890-6238(10)00103-6 (pii)10.1016/j. reprotox.2010.05.009
95. Robinson JF et al (2011) Arsenic- and cadmium-induced toxicogenomic response in mouse embryos undergoing neurulation. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 250(2):117-129. doi: S0041-008X(10)00360-1 (pii)10.1016/j.taap. 2010.09.018
96. Moreira EG et al (2010) Toxicogenomic profiling in maternal and fetal rodent brains following gestational exposure to chlorpyri-fos. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 245:310-325. doi: S0041-008X(10)00112-2 (pii)10.1016/j.taap. 2010.03.015
97. van Dartel DA et al (2011) Concentration-dependent gene expression responses to flusilazole in embryonic stem cell differentiation cultures. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 251(2):110-118. doi: S0041-008X(10)00465-5 (pii)10.1016/j.taap. 2010.12.008
98. Robinson JF et al. (2011, submitted) A tran-scriptomic approach to quantify dose-response sensitivity to phthalates in WEC
99. Theunissen PT et al (2012) Dose-response toxicogenomic evaluation of valproic acid, cyproconazole and hexaconazole in the neural embryonic stem cell test (ESTn). Toxicol Sci 125(2):430-438
100. Robinson JF et al (2012) A comparison of gene expression responses in rat whole embr yo culture and in vivo: time-dependent retinoic acid-induced teratogenic response. Toxicol Sci 126(1):242-254
101. Theunissen PT et al (2011) Time-response evaluation by transcriptomics of methylmer-cury effects on neural differentiation of murine embryonic stem cells. Toxicol Sci 122(2):437-447
102. Kultima K et al (2010) Early transcriptional responses in mouse embryos as a basis for selection of molecular markers predictive of valproic acid teratogenicity. Reprod Toxicol 30:457-468. doi: S0890-6238(10)00108-5 (pii)10.1016/j.reprotox.2010.05.014
103. Robinson JF et al (2009) Cadmium-induced differential toxicogenomic response in resistant and sensitive mouse strains undergoing neurulation. Toxicol Sci 107:206-219. doi: kfn221 (pii)10.1093/toxsci/kfn221
104. Wlodarczyk BJ et al (2006) Arsenic-induced gene expression changes in the neural tube of folate transport defective mouse embryos. Neurotoxicology 27(4):547-557
105. van Dartel DA et al (2009) Early gene expression changes during embryonic stem cell differentiation into cardiomyocytes and their modulation by monobutyl phtha-late. Reprod Toxicol 27:93-102. doi: S0890-6238(08)00368-7 (pii)10.1016/j.reprotox.2008.12.009
106. van Dartel DA et al (2010) Monitoring developmental toxicity in the embryonic stem cell test using differential gene expression of differentiation-related genes. Toxicol Sci 116:130-139. doi: kfq127 (pii)10.1093/tox-sci/kfq127
107. van Dartel DA et al (2011) Discriminating classes of developmental toxicants using gene expression profiling in the embryonic stem cell test. Toxicol Lett 201(2):143-151. doi: S0378-4274(10)01814-X (pii)10.1016/j.toxlet. 2010.12.019
108. van Dartel DA et al (2010) Transcriptomics-based identification of developmental toxicants through their interference with cardiomyocyte differentiation of embryonic stem cells. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 243:420- 428. doi: S0041-008X(09)00528-6 (pii)10.1016/j.taap. 2009.12.021
109. Pennings JL et al (2011) Gene set assembly for quantitative prediction of developmental toxicity in the embryonic stem cell test. Toxicology 284:63-71. doi: S0300-483X(11)00122-3 (pii) 10.1016/j.tox.2011.03.017
110. Yang L et al (2007) Transcriptional profiling reveals barcode-like toxicogenomic responses in the zebrafish embryo. Genome Biol 8:R227. doi: gb-2007-8-10-r227 (pii)10.1186/gb-2007-8-10-r227
111. Benninghoff AD, Williams DE (2008) Identification of a transcriptionalfingerprint of estrogen exposure in rainbow trout liver. Toxicol Sci 101:65-80. doi: kfm238 (pii)10.1093/toxsci/kfm238
112. Hermsen SA et al (2011) Chemical class-specific gene expression changes in the zebrafish embryo after exposure to glycol ether alkoxy acids and 1, 2, 4-triazole antifun-gals. Reprod Toxicol 32:245-252. doi: S0890-6238(11)00159-6 (pii)10.1016/j. reprotox.2011.05.010
113. Robinson JF et al (2010) Embryotoxicant-specific transcriptomic responses in rat postimplantation whole-embryo culture. Toxicol Sci 118:675-685. doi: kfq292 (pii)10.1093/toxsci/kfq292
114. Jergil M et al (2009) Valproic acid-induced deregulation in vitro of genes associated in vivo with neural tube defects. Toxicol Sci 108:132-148. doi: kfp002 (pii)10.1093/tox-sci/kfp002
115. Osman AM et al (2010) Proteome profiling of mouse embryonic stem cells to define markers for cell differentiation and embryo-toxicity. Reprod Toxicol 30:322-332. doi: S0890-6238(10)00193-0 (pii)10.1016/j. reprotox.2010.05.084
116. Robinson JF et al (2010) Integrating genetic and toxicogenomic information for determining underlying susceptibility to developmental disorders. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 88:920-930. doi: 10.1002/bdra.20708
117. Smith LL (2001) Key challenges for toxicolo-gists in the 21st century. Trends Pharmacol Sci 22(6):281-285
118. Williams-Devane CR, Wolf MA, Richard AM (2009) Toward a public toxicogenomics capability for supporting predictive toxicology: survey of current resources and chemical indexing of experiments in GEO and ArrayExpress. Toxicol Sci 109:358-371. doi: kfp061 (pii)10.1093/toxsci/kfp061
119. Singh AV, Knudsen KB, Knudsen TB (2007) Integrative analysis of the mouse embryonic transcriptome. Bioinformation 1:406-413
120. Singh AV et al (2007) Integrative database management for mouse development: systems and concepts. Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today 81:1-19. doi: 10.1002/bdrc.20089