slide assay with vista green. It's possible?

Peter Ellis pjie2 at
Thu Apr 13 21:06:43 EST 2006

GysdeJongh wrote:
> "Peter Ellis" <pjie2 at> wrote in message
> news:4a7l4sFrg5n8U1 at
>> GysdeJongh wrote:
>>> Or you could buy Affi- or ABI chips . Faster .
>>> They have another advantage : they are the only one accepted for
>>> publication ! You will not get a publication with home brew chips in
>>> any serious journal.
>> Rubbish
> This search string :    Ellis P[author] AND (microarray OR Array OR
> "DNA Array")     in Pubmed finds 3
> Two different Peters , 1 does not use array's
> Maybe I am missing something

I'm the one that does use microarrays.

Leaving aside the papers of mine that don't directly hinge on array data, 
there are four papers I've authored or co-authored since 2004 that fit the 
bill (publication of array data from home-brew chips).  Your string finds 
two of them.  One is new enough not to be indexed in PubMed yet, the fourth 
simply didn't have "microarray" as a keyword.  Amazingly enough, I'm more 
likely to put things like "spermatogenesis" or "testis" as keywords, since 
the novel scientific content of a paper is by and large the important bit - 
perhaps this is why you think there are no microarray papers out there.

These four papers are in Molecular Human Reproduction, Human Molecular 
Genetics, Genome Biology and Mol. Cell. Biol.  OK, none of them are Nature 
(and I certainly don't want to sound like I'm boasting) - but I think that 
all four could be considered serious journals.

I'm not *remotely* interested in getting into a dick size war about the 
length of respective publication records: I'm just making the point that 
home-brew array work *does* get published in good journals.  That is, if 
it's good work, supported by other evidence, that tells us something 
interesting about the world - same as any other array work on any other 
array platform.

I note in passing that trying this search string:
"cdna microarray" NOT affymetrix NOT ABI
in PubMed finds 2253 papers.  Why not try reading some?  You might be 
pleasantly surprised.


More information about the Methods mailing list