Confirming microarray data--is it really necessary?

Abstract

The generation of corroborative data has become a commonly used approach for ensuring the veracity of microarray data. Indeed, the need to conduct corroborative studies has now become official editorial policy for at least 2 journals, and several more are considering introducing such a policy. The issue of corroborating microarray data is a challenging one-there are good arguments for and against conducting such experiments. However, we believe that the introduction of a fixed requirement to corroborate microarray data, especially if adopted by more journals, is overly burdensome and may, in at least several applications of microarray technology, be inappropriate. We also believe that, in cases in which corroborative studies are deemed essential, a lack of clear guidance leaves researchers unclear as to what constitutes an acceptable corroborative study. Guidelines have already been outlined regarding the details of conducting microarray experiments. We propose that all stakeholders, including journal editorial boards, reviewers, and researchers, should undertake concerted and inclusive efforts to address properly and clarify the specific issue of corroborative data. In this article we highlight some of the thorny and vague areas for discussion surrounding this issue. We also report the results of a poll in which 76 life science journals were asked about their current or intended policies on the inclusion of corroborative studies in papers containing microarray data.

Fig. 1

Number of articles in Entrez-PubMed containing keyword “microarray.” A search was conducted in Entrez-PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db = PubMed) using “microarray” as the sole search term. Searches were conducted for each year from 1995 through 2002.