Result

Search results for the GEO ID: GSE24243

(Click on the check boxes provided under "Select for analysis", to initiate grouping)

(Once the selection is made, click on "Add groups" in "Make groups for comparison", to make a group. Scroll down)

GSM ID

GPL ID

Select for analysis

Title

Source name

Description

Characteristics

GSM596163

GPL1261

Skin_Lox_Control_Rep1

Dorsal Skin_Lox_Control

gender: male strain: C57BL/6J genotype/variation: Scd1flox/flox (Lox) control tissue: Dorsal skin age: 8-9 wks old

Gene expression data of whole skin

Sample_geo_accession	GSM596163
Sample_status	Public on May 09 2011
Sample_submission_date	Sep 21 2010
Sample_last_update_date	May 09 2011
Sample_type	RNA
Sample_channel_count	1
Sample_organism_ch1	Mus musculus
Sample_taxid_ch1	10090
Sample_treatment_protocol_ch1	Male mice were sacrificed in the non-fasted state by isoflurane overdose, shaved with electric clippers, and whole dorsal skin removed and flash frozen in liquid nitrogen
Sample_growth_protocol_ch1	Male Lox and SKO mice on a C57BL/6J background were weaned at 3 weeks of age and maintained on a standard rodent diet (Purina Formulab 5008) until 8-9 weeks of age
Sample_molecule_ch1	total RNA
Sample_extract_protocol_ch1	RNA was extracted from skin with TRI reagent (Molecular Research Center), DNase treated with Turbo Dnase (Ambion), and re-extraced with TRI reagent to inactivate Dnase
Sample_label_ch1	Biotin
Sample_label_protocol_ch1	Samples were labeled using the Ambion MessageAMP Biotin II-Enhanced IVT kit using 1.5 ug of RNA for all samples and processed according to kit instruction manual. 14 hour IVT reaction at 37C.
Sample_hyb_protocol	Hybridization cocktail prepared acording to the protocols and procedures in the AFX Expression Analysis Technical Manual. 10 ug of aRNA applied to AFX array and hybridized overnight at 45C for 16 hours in AFX 640 Hybridization oven. AFX 430 2.0 gene chips were post processed on the AFX 450 Fluidics Station according to all AFX protocols and procedures defined for the array (EukGE_WS2v5_450)
Sample_scan_protocol	All AFX 430 2.0 gene chips scanned on AFX GC3000 G7 scanner using Command console. Data extracted from scanned images using Expression console. All recommended AFX control parameters ok.
Sample_data_processing = Expression measurements were pre-processed to provide background correction, normalization and log base 2 transformation using RMA (Robust Multi-array Average) (Irizarry RA, et al. Biostatistics 4: 249-264, 2003). We used two analytical approaches to generate lists of differentially expressed probe sets, loosely referred to as genes. First, we calculated an un-moderated t-statistic for every probe set by applying Welch’s t-test. The resulting p-values were used to calculate q-values, which account for multiple tests and provide thresholds so that lists can be generated for a target false discovery rate (FDR) (Storey JD, and Tibshirani R. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100: 9440-9445, 2003). Using this method, we targeted a FDR of 5% and probe sets with q-values below 0.05 are considered to be of interest. We also applied EBarrays (Kendziorski CM, et al. Stat Med 22: 3899-3914, 2003; Newton MA, et al. J Comput Biol 8: 37-52, 2001), which along with RMA is implemented in R, a publicly available statistical analysis environment (R. Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. http://www.r-project.org. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2005) and available at Bioconductor (Gentleman RC, et al Genome Biol 5: R80, 2004.). EBarrays is an empirical Bayes approach which models the probability distribution of a set of expression measurements (Kendziorski CM, et al. Stat Med 22: 3899-3914, 2003, 50). It accounts generally for differences among probe sets in their true underlying expression levels, measurement fluctuations and distinct expression patterns for a given probe set among conditions (Kendziorski CM, et al. Stat Med 22: 3899-3914, 2003). An expression pattern is an arrangement of the true underlying intensities (u1) in each condition. The number of patterns possible depends on the number of conditions from which the expression measurements were obtained. For example, when measurements are taken from two conditions, two patterns of expression are possible: equivalent expression (EE; u1	u2) and differential expression (DE; u1 ≠ u2). Since we do not know a priori which probe sets are in which patterns, the marginal distribution of the data is a mixture over the possible patterns with model parameters determined by the full set of array data. In this way, the approach utilizes information across a set of arrays to optimize model fit and is thus more efficient than a number of methods that make inferences one probe set at a time (Kendziorski CM, et al. Stat Med 22: 3899-3914, 2003). The approach also naturally controls for both type I and type II errors (Kendziorski CM, et al. Stat Med 22: 3899-3914, 2003). The fitted model parameters provide information on the number of probe sets expected in each expression pattern. Furthermore, the fitted model is used to assign posterior probability distributions to every probe set. Each probe set specific distribution gives the posterior probability of that probe set's individual expression pattern. The posterior expected FDR is controlled by thresholding the posterior probabilities. Two approaches were used as discussed in (Newton MA, et al. Detecting differential gene expression with a semiparametric hierarchical mixture method. Biostatistics 5: 155-176, 2004.). The most conservative approach to control the FDR at 5%, for example, is to only consider probe sets with specific posterior probability of EE less than 0.05 (hard threshold). We also report results from the less conservative approach that determines the exact threshold required (soft threshold) so that the average posterior probability of EE for all probe sets on a list is less than 0.05.
Sample_platform_id	GPL1261
Sample_contact_name	Matthew,,Flowers
Sample_contact_email	mtflowers@wisc.edu
Sample_contact_laboratory	James Ntambi
Sample_contact_department	Biochemistry
Sample_contact_institute	University of Wisconsin-Madison
Sample_contact_address	433 Babcock Drive
Sample_contact_city	Madison
Sample_contact_state	WI
Sample_contact_zip/postal_code	53706
Sample_contact_country	USA
Sample_supplementary_file	ftp://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/samples/GSM596nnn/GSM596163/suppl/GSM596163.CEL.gz
Sample_series_id	GSE24243
Sample_data_row_count	45101

GSM596164

GPL1261

Skin_Lox_Control_Rep2

Dorsal Skin_Lox_Control

gender: male strain: C57BL/6J genotype/variation: Scd1flox/flox (Lox) control tissue: Dorsal skin age: 8-9 wks old

Gene expression data of whole skin

Sample_geo_accession	GSM596164
Sample_status	Public on May 09 2011
Sample_submission_date	Sep 21 2010
Sample_last_update_date	May 09 2011
Sample_type	RNA
Sample_channel_count	1
Sample_organism_ch1	Mus musculus
Sample_taxid_ch1	10090
Sample_treatment_protocol_ch1	Male mice were sacrificed in the non-fasted state by isoflurane overdose, shaved with electric clippers, and whole dorsal skin removed and flash frozen in liquid nitrogen
Sample_growth_protocol_ch1	Male Lox and SKO mice on a C57BL/6J background were weaned at 3 weeks of age and maintained on a standard rodent diet (Purina Formulab 5008) until 8-9 weeks of age
Sample_molecule_ch1	total RNA
Sample_extract_protocol_ch1	RNA was extracted from skin with TRI reagent (Molecular Research Center), DNase treated with Turbo Dnase (Ambion), and re-extraced with TRI reagent to inactivate Dnase
Sample_label_ch1	Biotin
Sample_label_protocol_ch1	Samples were labeled using the Ambion MessageAMP Biotin II-Enhanced IVT kit using 1.5 ug of RNA for all samples and processed according to kit instruction manual. 14 hour IVT reaction at 37C.
Sample_hyb_protocol	Hybridization cocktail prepared acording to the protocols and procedures in the AFX Expression Analysis Technical Manual. 10 ug of aRNA applied to AFX array and hybridized overnight at 45C for 16 hours in AFX 640 Hybridization oven. AFX 430 2.0 gene chips were post processed on the AFX 450 Fluidics Station according to all AFX protocols and procedures defined for the array (EukGE_WS2v5_450)
Sample_scan_protocol	All AFX 430 2.0 gene chips scanned on AFX GC3000 G7 scanner using Command console. Data extracted from scanned images using Expression console. All recommended AFX control parameters ok.
Sample_data_processing = Expression measurements were pre-processed to provide background correction, normalization and log base 2 transformation using RMA (Robust Multi-array Average) (Irizarry RA, et al. Biostatistics 4: 249-264, 2003). We used two analytical approaches to generate lists of differentially expressed probe sets, loosely referred to as genes. First, we calculated an un-moderated t-statistic for every probe set by applying Welch’s t-test. The resulting p-values were used to calculate q-values, which account for multiple tests and provide thresholds so that lists can be generated for a target false discovery rate (FDR) (Storey JD, and Tibshirani R. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100: 9440-9445, 2003). Using this method, we targeted a FDR of 5% and probe sets with q-values below 0.05 are considered to be of interest. We also applied EBarrays (Kendziorski CM, et al. Stat Med 22: 3899-3914, 2003; Newton MA, et al. J Comput Biol 8: 37-52, 2001), which along with RMA is implemented in R, a publicly available statistical analysis environment (R. Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. http://www.r-project.org. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2005) and available at Bioconductor (Gentleman RC, et al Genome Biol 5: R80, 2004.). EBarrays is an empirical Bayes approach which models the probability distribution of a set of expression measurements (Kendziorski CM, et al. Stat Med 22: 3899-3914, 2003, 50). It accounts generally for differences among probe sets in their true underlying expression levels, measurement fluctuations and distinct expression patterns for a given probe set among conditions (Kendziorski CM, et al. Stat Med 22: 3899-3914, 2003). An expression pattern is an arrangement of the true underlying intensities (u1) in each condition. The number of patterns possible depends on the number of conditions from which the expression measurements were obtained. For example, when measurements are taken from two conditions, two patterns of expression are possible: equivalent expression (EE; u1	u2) and differential expression (DE; u1 ≠ u2). Since we do not know a priori which probe sets are in which patterns, the marginal distribution of the data is a mixture over the possible patterns with model parameters determined by the full set of array data. In this way, the approach utilizes information across a set of arrays to optimize model fit and is thus more efficient than a number of methods that make inferences one probe set at a time (Kendziorski CM, et al. Stat Med 22: 3899-3914, 2003). The approach also naturally controls for both type I and type II errors (Kendziorski CM, et al. Stat Med 22: 3899-3914, 2003). The fitted model parameters provide information on the number of probe sets expected in each expression pattern. Furthermore, the fitted model is used to assign posterior probability distributions to every probe set. Each probe set specific distribution gives the posterior probability of that probe set's individual expression pattern. The posterior expected FDR is controlled by thresholding the posterior probabilities. Two approaches were used as discussed in (Newton MA, et al. Detecting differential gene expression with a semiparametric hierarchical mixture method. Biostatistics 5: 155-176, 2004.). The most conservative approach to control the FDR at 5%, for example, is to only consider probe sets with specific posterior probability of EE less than 0.05 (hard threshold). We also report results from the less conservative approach that determines the exact threshold required (soft threshold) so that the average posterior probability of EE for all probe sets on a list is less than 0.05.
Sample_platform_id	GPL1261
Sample_contact_name	Matthew,,Flowers
Sample_contact_email	mtflowers@wisc.edu
Sample_contact_laboratory	James Ntambi
Sample_contact_department	Biochemistry
Sample_contact_institute	University of Wisconsin-Madison
Sample_contact_address	433 Babcock Drive
Sample_contact_city	Madison
Sample_contact_state	WI
Sample_contact_zip/postal_code	53706
Sample_contact_country	USA
Sample_supplementary_file	ftp://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/samples/GSM596nnn/GSM596164/suppl/GSM596164.CEL.gz
Sample_series_id	GSE24243
Sample_data_row_count	45101

GSM596165

GPL1261

Skin_Lox_Control_Rep3

Dorsal Skin_Lox_Control

gender: male strain: C57BL/6J genotype/variation: Scd1flox/flox (Lox) control tissue: Dorsal skin age: 8-9 wks old

Gene expression data of whole skin

Sample_geo_accession	GSM596165
Sample_status	Public on May 09 2011
Sample_submission_date	Sep 21 2010
Sample_last_update_date	May 09 2011
Sample_type	RNA
Sample_channel_count	1
Sample_organism_ch1	Mus musculus
Sample_taxid_ch1	10090
Sample_treatment_protocol_ch1	Male mice were sacrificed in the non-fasted state by isoflurane overdose, shaved with electric clippers, and whole dorsal skin removed and flash frozen in liquid nitrogen
Sample_growth_protocol_ch1	Male Lox and SKO mice on a C57BL/6J background were weaned at 3 weeks of age and maintained on a standard rodent diet (Purina Formulab 5008) until 8-9 weeks of age
Sample_molecule_ch1	total RNA
Sample_extract_protocol_ch1	RNA was extracted from skin with TRI reagent (Molecular Research Center), DNase treated with Turbo Dnase (Ambion), and re-extraced with TRI reagent to inactivate Dnase
Sample_label_ch1	Biotin
Sample_label_protocol_ch1	Samples were labeled using the Ambion MessageAMP Biotin II-Enhanced IVT kit using 1.5 ug of RNA for all samples and processed according to kit instruction manual. 14 hour IVT reaction at 37C.
Sample_hyb_protocol	Hybridization cocktail prepared acording to the protocols and procedures in the AFX Expression Analysis Technical Manual. 10 ug of aRNA applied to AFX array and hybridized overnight at 45C for 16 hours in AFX 640 Hybridization oven. AFX 430 2.0 gene chips were post processed on the AFX 450 Fluidics Station according to all AFX protocols and procedures defined for the array (EukGE_WS2v5_450)
Sample_scan_protocol	All AFX 430 2.0 gene chips scanned on AFX GC3000 G7 scanner using Command console. Data extracted from scanned images using Expression console. All recommended AFX control parameters ok.
Sample_data_processing = Expression measurements were pre-processed to provide background correction, normalization and log base 2 transformation using RMA (Robust Multi-array Average) (Irizarry RA, et al. Biostatistics 4: 249-264, 2003). We used two analytical approaches to generate lists of differentially expressed probe sets, loosely referred to as genes. First, we calculated an un-moderated t-statistic for every probe set by applying Welch’s t-test. The resulting p-values were used to calculate q-values, which account for multiple tests and provide thresholds so that lists can be generated for a target false discovery rate (FDR) (Storey JD, and Tibshirani R. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100: 9440-9445, 2003). Using this method, we targeted a FDR of 5% and probe sets with q-values below 0.05 are considered to be of interest. We also applied EBarrays (Kendziorski CM, et al. Stat Med 22: 3899-3914, 2003; Newton MA, et al. J Comput Biol 8: 37-52, 2001), which along with RMA is implemented in R, a publicly available statistical analysis environment (R. Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. http://www.r-project.org. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2005) and available at Bioconductor (Gentleman RC, et al Genome Biol 5: R80, 2004.). EBarrays is an empirical Bayes approach which models the probability distribution of a set of expression measurements (Kendziorski CM, et al. Stat Med 22: 3899-3914, 2003, 50). It accounts generally for differences among probe sets in their true underlying expression levels, measurement fluctuations and distinct expression patterns for a given probe set among conditions (Kendziorski CM, et al. Stat Med 22: 3899-3914, 2003). An expression pattern is an arrangement of the true underlying intensities (u1) in each condition. The number of patterns possible depends on the number of conditions from which the expression measurements were obtained. For example, when measurements are taken from two conditions, two patterns of expression are possible: equivalent expression (EE; u1	u2) and differential expression (DE; u1 ≠ u2). Since we do not know a priori which probe sets are in which patterns, the marginal distribution of the data is a mixture over the possible patterns with model parameters determined by the full set of array data. In this way, the approach utilizes information across a set of arrays to optimize model fit and is thus more efficient than a number of methods that make inferences one probe set at a time (Kendziorski CM, et al. Stat Med 22: 3899-3914, 2003). The approach also naturally controls for both type I and type II errors (Kendziorski CM, et al. Stat Med 22: 3899-3914, 2003). The fitted model parameters provide information on the number of probe sets expected in each expression pattern. Furthermore, the fitted model is used to assign posterior probability distributions to every probe set. Each probe set specific distribution gives the posterior probability of that probe set's individual expression pattern. The posterior expected FDR is controlled by thresholding the posterior probabilities. Two approaches were used as discussed in (Newton MA, et al. Detecting differential gene expression with a semiparametric hierarchical mixture method. Biostatistics 5: 155-176, 2004.). The most conservative approach to control the FDR at 5%, for example, is to only consider probe sets with specific posterior probability of EE less than 0.05 (hard threshold). We also report results from the less conservative approach that determines the exact threshold required (soft threshold) so that the average posterior probability of EE for all probe sets on a list is less than 0.05.
Sample_platform_id	GPL1261
Sample_contact_name	Matthew,,Flowers
Sample_contact_email	mtflowers@wisc.edu
Sample_contact_laboratory	James Ntambi
Sample_contact_department	Biochemistry
Sample_contact_institute	University of Wisconsin-Madison
Sample_contact_address	433 Babcock Drive
Sample_contact_city	Madison
Sample_contact_state	WI
Sample_contact_zip/postal_code	53706
Sample_contact_country	USA
Sample_supplementary_file	ftp://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/samples/GSM596nnn/GSM596165/suppl/GSM596165.CEL.gz
Sample_series_id	GSE24243
Sample_data_row_count	45101

GSM596166

GPL1261

Skin_SKO_Rep1

Dorsal Skin_SKO

gender: male strain: C57BL/6J genotype/variation: Scd1 knockout (SKO) tissue: Dorsal skin age: 8-9 wks old

Gene expression data of whole skin

Sample_geo_accession	GSM596166
Sample_status	Public on May 09 2011
Sample_submission_date	Sep 21 2010
Sample_last_update_date	May 09 2011
Sample_type	RNA
Sample_channel_count	1
Sample_organism_ch1	Mus musculus
Sample_taxid_ch1	10090
Sample_treatment_protocol_ch1	Male mice were sacrificed in the non-fasted state by isoflurane overdose, shaved with electric clippers, and whole dorsal skin removed and flash frozen in liquid nitrogen
Sample_growth_protocol_ch1	Male Lox and SKO mice on a C57BL/6J background were weaned at 3 weeks of age and maintained on a standard rodent diet (Purina Formulab 5008) until 8-9 weeks of age
Sample_molecule_ch1	total RNA
Sample_extract_protocol_ch1	RNA was extracted from skin with TRI reagent (Molecular Research Center), DNase treated with Turbo Dnase (Ambion), and re-extraced with TRI reagent to inactivate Dnase
Sample_label_ch1	Biotin
Sample_label_protocol_ch1	Samples were labeled using the Ambion MessageAMP Biotin II-Enhanced IVT kit using 1.5 ug of RNA for all samples and processed according to kit instruction manual. 14 hour IVT reaction at 37C.
Sample_hyb_protocol	Hybridization cocktail prepared acording to the protocols and procedures in the AFX Expression Analysis Technical Manual. 10 ug of aRNA applied to AFX array and hybridized overnight at 45C for 16 hours in AFX 640 Hybridization oven. AFX 430 2.0 gene chips were post processed on the AFX 450 Fluidics Station according to all AFX protocols and procedures defined for the array (EukGE_WS2v5_450)
Sample_scan_protocol	All AFX 430 2.0 gene chips scanned on AFX GC3000 G7 scanner using Command console. Data extracted from scanned images using Expression console. All recommended AFX control parameters ok.
Sample_data_processing = Expression measurements were pre-processed to provide background correction, normalization and log base 2 transformation using RMA (Robust Multi-array Average) (Irizarry RA, et al. Biostatistics 4: 249-264, 2003). We used two analytical approaches to generate lists of differentially expressed probe sets, loosely referred to as genes. First, we calculated an un-moderated t-statistic for every probe set by applying Welch’s t-test. The resulting p-values were used to calculate q-values, which account for multiple tests and provide thresholds so that lists can be generated for a target false discovery rate (FDR) (Storey JD, and Tibshirani R. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100: 9440-9445, 2003). Using this method, we targeted a FDR of 5% and probe sets with q-values below 0.05 are considered to be of interest. We also applied EBarrays (Kendziorski CM, et al. Stat Med 22: 3899-3914, 2003; Newton MA, et al. J Comput Biol 8: 37-52, 2001), which along with RMA is implemented in R, a publicly available statistical analysis environment (R. Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. http://www.r-project.org. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2005) and available at Bioconductor (Gentleman RC, et al Genome Biol 5: R80, 2004.). EBarrays is an empirical Bayes approach which models the probability distribution of a set of expression measurements (Kendziorski CM, et al. Stat Med 22: 3899-3914, 2003, 50). It accounts generally for differences among probe sets in their true underlying expression levels, measurement fluctuations and distinct expression patterns for a given probe set among conditions (Kendziorski CM, et al. Stat Med 22: 3899-3914, 2003). An expression pattern is an arrangement of the true underlying intensities (u1) in each condition. The number of patterns possible depends on the number of conditions from which the expression measurements were obtained. For example, when measurements are taken from two conditions, two patterns of expression are possible: equivalent expression (EE; u1	u2) and differential expression (DE; u1 ≠ u2). Since we do not know a priori which probe sets are in which patterns, the marginal distribution of the data is a mixture over the possible patterns with model parameters determined by the full set of array data. In this way, the approach utilizes information across a set of arrays to optimize model fit and is thus more efficient than a number of methods that make inferences one probe set at a time (Kendziorski CM, et al. Stat Med 22: 3899-3914, 2003). The approach also naturally controls for both type I and type II errors (Kendziorski CM, et al. Stat Med 22: 3899-3914, 2003). The fitted model parameters provide information on the number of probe sets expected in each expression pattern. Furthermore, the fitted model is used to assign posterior probability distributions to every probe set. Each probe set specific distribution gives the posterior probability of that probe set's individual expression pattern. The posterior expected FDR is controlled by thresholding the posterior probabilities. Two approaches were used as discussed in (Newton MA, et al. Detecting differential gene expression with a semiparametric hierarchical mixture method. Biostatistics 5: 155-176, 2004.). The most conservative approach to control the FDR at 5%, for example, is to only consider probe sets with specific posterior probability of EE less than 0.05 (hard threshold). We also report results from the less conservative approach that determines the exact threshold required (soft threshold) so that the average posterior probability of EE for all probe sets on a list is less than 0.05.
Sample_platform_id	GPL1261
Sample_contact_name	Matthew,,Flowers
Sample_contact_email	mtflowers@wisc.edu
Sample_contact_laboratory	James Ntambi
Sample_contact_department	Biochemistry
Sample_contact_institute	University of Wisconsin-Madison
Sample_contact_address	433 Babcock Drive
Sample_contact_city	Madison
Sample_contact_state	WI
Sample_contact_zip/postal_code	53706
Sample_contact_country	USA
Sample_supplementary_file	ftp://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/samples/GSM596nnn/GSM596166/suppl/GSM596166.CEL.gz
Sample_series_id	GSE24243
Sample_data_row_count	45101

GSM596167

GPL1261

Skin_SKO_Rep2

Dorsal Skin_SKO

gender: male strain: C57BL/6J genotype/variation: Scd1 knockout (SKO) tissue: Dorsal skin age: 8-9 wks old

Gene expression data of whole skin

Sample_geo_accession	GSM596167
Sample_status	Public on May 09 2011
Sample_submission_date	Sep 21 2010
Sample_last_update_date	May 09 2011
Sample_type	RNA
Sample_channel_count	1
Sample_organism_ch1	Mus musculus
Sample_taxid_ch1	10090
Sample_treatment_protocol_ch1	Male mice were sacrificed in the non-fasted state by isoflurane overdose, shaved with electric clippers, and whole dorsal skin removed and flash frozen in liquid nitrogen
Sample_growth_protocol_ch1	Male Lox and SKO mice on a C57BL/6J background were weaned at 3 weeks of age and maintained on a standard rodent diet (Purina Formulab 5008) until 8-9 weeks of age
Sample_molecule_ch1	total RNA
Sample_extract_protocol_ch1	RNA was extracted from skin with TRI reagent (Molecular Research Center), DNase treated with Turbo Dnase (Ambion), and re-extraced with TRI reagent to inactivate Dnase
Sample_label_ch1	Biotin
Sample_label_protocol_ch1	Samples were labeled using the Ambion MessageAMP Biotin II-Enhanced IVT kit using 1.5 ug of RNA for all samples and processed according to kit instruction manual. 14 hour IVT reaction at 37C.
Sample_hyb_protocol	Hybridization cocktail prepared acording to the protocols and procedures in the AFX Expression Analysis Technical Manual. 10 ug of aRNA applied to AFX array and hybridized overnight at 45C for 16 hours in AFX 640 Hybridization oven. AFX 430 2.0 gene chips were post processed on the AFX 450 Fluidics Station according to all AFX protocols and procedures defined for the array (EukGE_WS2v5_450)
Sample_scan_protocol	All AFX 430 2.0 gene chips scanned on AFX GC3000 G7 scanner using Command console. Data extracted from scanned images using Expression console. All recommended AFX control parameters ok.
Sample_data_processing = Expression measurements were pre-processed to provide background correction, normalization and log base 2 transformation using RMA (Robust Multi-array Average) (Irizarry RA, et al. Biostatistics 4: 249-264, 2003). We used two analytical approaches to generate lists of differentially expressed probe sets, loosely referred to as genes. First, we calculated an un-moderated t-statistic for every probe set by applying Welch’s t-test. The resulting p-values were used to calculate q-values, which account for multiple tests and provide thresholds so that lists can be generated for a target false discovery rate (FDR) (Storey JD, and Tibshirani R. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100: 9440-9445, 2003). Using this method, we targeted a FDR of 5% and probe sets with q-values below 0.05 are considered to be of interest. We also applied EBarrays (Kendziorski CM, et al. Stat Med 22: 3899-3914, 2003; Newton MA, et al. J Comput Biol 8: 37-52, 2001), which along with RMA is implemented in R, a publicly available statistical analysis environment (R. Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. http://www.r-project.org. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2005) and available at Bioconductor (Gentleman RC, et al Genome Biol 5: R80, 2004.). EBarrays is an empirical Bayes approach which models the probability distribution of a set of expression measurements (Kendziorski CM, et al. Stat Med 22: 3899-3914, 2003, 50). It accounts generally for differences among probe sets in their true underlying expression levels, measurement fluctuations and distinct expression patterns for a given probe set among conditions (Kendziorski CM, et al. Stat Med 22: 3899-3914, 2003). An expression pattern is an arrangement of the true underlying intensities (u1) in each condition. The number of patterns possible depends on the number of conditions from which the expression measurements were obtained. For example, when measurements are taken from two conditions, two patterns of expression are possible: equivalent expression (EE; u1	u2) and differential expression (DE; u1 ≠ u2). Since we do not know a priori which probe sets are in which patterns, the marginal distribution of the data is a mixture over the possible patterns with model parameters determined by the full set of array data. In this way, the approach utilizes information across a set of arrays to optimize model fit and is thus more efficient than a number of methods that make inferences one probe set at a time (Kendziorski CM, et al. Stat Med 22: 3899-3914, 2003). The approach also naturally controls for both type I and type II errors (Kendziorski CM, et al. Stat Med 22: 3899-3914, 2003). The fitted model parameters provide information on the number of probe sets expected in each expression pattern. Furthermore, the fitted model is used to assign posterior probability distributions to every probe set. Each probe set specific distribution gives the posterior probability of that probe set's individual expression pattern. The posterior expected FDR is controlled by thresholding the posterior probabilities. Two approaches were used as discussed in (Newton MA, et al. Detecting differential gene expression with a semiparametric hierarchical mixture method. Biostatistics 5: 155-176, 2004.). The most conservative approach to control the FDR at 5%, for example, is to only consider probe sets with specific posterior probability of EE less than 0.05 (hard threshold). We also report results from the less conservative approach that determines the exact threshold required (soft threshold) so that the average posterior probability of EE for all probe sets on a list is less than 0.05.
Sample_platform_id	GPL1261
Sample_contact_name	Matthew,,Flowers
Sample_contact_email	mtflowers@wisc.edu
Sample_contact_laboratory	James Ntambi
Sample_contact_department	Biochemistry
Sample_contact_institute	University of Wisconsin-Madison
Sample_contact_address	433 Babcock Drive
Sample_contact_city	Madison
Sample_contact_state	WI
Sample_contact_zip/postal_code	53706
Sample_contact_country	USA
Sample_supplementary_file	ftp://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/samples/GSM596nnn/GSM596167/suppl/GSM596167.CEL.gz
Sample_series_id	GSE24243
Sample_data_row_count	45101

GSM596168

GPL1261

Skin_SKO_Rep3

Dorsal Skin_SKO

gender: male strain: C57BL/6J genotype/variation: Scd1 knockout (SKO) tissue: Dorsal skin age: 8-9 wks old

Gene expression data of whole skin

Sample_geo_accession	GSM596168
Sample_status	Public on May 09 2011
Sample_submission_date	Sep 21 2010
Sample_last_update_date	May 09 2011
Sample_type	RNA
Sample_channel_count	1
Sample_organism_ch1	Mus musculus
Sample_taxid_ch1	10090
Sample_treatment_protocol_ch1	Male mice were sacrificed in the non-fasted state by isoflurane overdose, shaved with electric clippers, and whole dorsal skin removed and flash frozen in liquid nitrogen
Sample_growth_protocol_ch1	Male Lox and SKO mice on a C57BL/6J background were weaned at 3 weeks of age and maintained on a standard rodent diet (Purina Formulab 5008) until 8-9 weeks of age
Sample_molecule_ch1	total RNA
Sample_extract_protocol_ch1	RNA was extracted from skin with TRI reagent (Molecular Research Center), DNase treated with Turbo Dnase (Ambion), and re-extraced with TRI reagent to inactivate Dnase
Sample_label_ch1	Biotin
Sample_label_protocol_ch1	Samples were labeled using the Ambion MessageAMP Biotin II-Enhanced IVT kit using 1.5 ug of RNA for all samples and processed according to kit instruction manual. 14 hour IVT reaction at 37C.
Sample_hyb_protocol	Hybridization cocktail prepared acording to the protocols and procedures in the AFX Expression Analysis Technical Manual. 10 ug of aRNA applied to AFX array and hybridized overnight at 45C for 16 hours in AFX 640 Hybridization oven. AFX 430 2.0 gene chips were post processed on the AFX 450 Fluidics Station according to all AFX protocols and procedures defined for the array (EukGE_WS2v5_450)
Sample_scan_protocol	All AFX 430 2.0 gene chips scanned on AFX GC3000 G7 scanner using Command console. Data extracted from scanned images using Expression console. All recommended AFX control parameters ok.
Sample_data_processing = Expression measurements were pre-processed to provide background correction, normalization and log base 2 transformation using RMA (Robust Multi-array Average) (Irizarry RA, et al. Biostatistics 4: 249-264, 2003). We used two analytical approaches to generate lists of differentially expressed probe sets, loosely referred to as genes. First, we calculated an un-moderated t-statistic for every probe set by applying Welch’s t-test. The resulting p-values were used to calculate q-values, which account for multiple tests and provide thresholds so that lists can be generated for a target false discovery rate (FDR) (Storey JD, and Tibshirani R. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100: 9440-9445, 2003). Using this method, we targeted a FDR of 5% and probe sets with q-values below 0.05 are considered to be of interest. We also applied EBarrays (Kendziorski CM, et al. Stat Med 22: 3899-3914, 2003; Newton MA, et al. J Comput Biol 8: 37-52, 2001), which along with RMA is implemented in R, a publicly available statistical analysis environment (R. Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. http://www.r-project.org. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2005) and available at Bioconductor (Gentleman RC, et al Genome Biol 5: R80, 2004.). EBarrays is an empirical Bayes approach which models the probability distribution of a set of expression measurements (Kendziorski CM, et al. Stat Med 22: 3899-3914, 2003, 50). It accounts generally for differences among probe sets in their true underlying expression levels, measurement fluctuations and distinct expression patterns for a given probe set among conditions (Kendziorski CM, et al. Stat Med 22: 3899-3914, 2003). An expression pattern is an arrangement of the true underlying intensities (u1) in each condition. The number of patterns possible depends on the number of conditions from which the expression measurements were obtained. For example, when measurements are taken from two conditions, two patterns of expression are possible: equivalent expression (EE; u1	u2) and differential expression (DE; u1 ≠ u2). Since we do not know a priori which probe sets are in which patterns, the marginal distribution of the data is a mixture over the possible patterns with model parameters determined by the full set of array data. In this way, the approach utilizes information across a set of arrays to optimize model fit and is thus more efficient than a number of methods that make inferences one probe set at a time (Kendziorski CM, et al. Stat Med 22: 3899-3914, 2003). The approach also naturally controls for both type I and type II errors (Kendziorski CM, et al. Stat Med 22: 3899-3914, 2003). The fitted model parameters provide information on the number of probe sets expected in each expression pattern. Furthermore, the fitted model is used to assign posterior probability distributions to every probe set. Each probe set specific distribution gives the posterior probability of that probe set's individual expression pattern. The posterior expected FDR is controlled by thresholding the posterior probabilities. Two approaches were used as discussed in (Newton MA, et al. Detecting differential gene expression with a semiparametric hierarchical mixture method. Biostatistics 5: 155-176, 2004.). The most conservative approach to control the FDR at 5%, for example, is to only consider probe sets with specific posterior probability of EE less than 0.05 (hard threshold). We also report results from the less conservative approach that determines the exact threshold required (soft threshold) so that the average posterior probability of EE for all probe sets on a list is less than 0.05.
Sample_platform_id	GPL1261
Sample_contact_name	Matthew,,Flowers
Sample_contact_email	mtflowers@wisc.edu
Sample_contact_laboratory	James Ntambi
Sample_contact_department	Biochemistry
Sample_contact_institute	University of Wisconsin-Madison
Sample_contact_address	433 Babcock Drive
Sample_contact_city	Madison
Sample_contact_state	WI
Sample_contact_zip/postal_code	53706
Sample_contact_country	USA
Sample_supplementary_file	ftp://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/samples/GSM596nnn/GSM596168/suppl/GSM596168.CEL.gz
Sample_series_id	GSE24243
Sample_data_row_count	45101

Make groups for comparisons

(2 groups will be compared at a time)

Select GSMs and click on "Add groups"

Enter the group name here:

Select expression type

Transcripts profile based on;

A. Differential status (Up/Down regulation)

B. Absolute calls (Transcribed/Not-detected)

Filter results by number of probes