This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Search for Related Content

(Circulation Research. 2001;89:469.)
© 2001 American Heart Association, Inc.

Editorial

Suitability Criteria for Manuscripts Utilizing Genomics Array Technology

The Editors

From the Editor in Chief and Associate Editors, Circulation Research.

Correspondence to Circulation Research Editorial Office, 2700 Lighthouse Point East, Suite 230, Baltimore, MD 21224. E-mail circulation.research@circresearch.com

Key Words: gene chip array technology • novel mechanistic insight • RNA • physiological processes • complementary methods

Circulation Research is receiving a sizable number of submissions of manuscripts that feature gene chip array technology and other high-throughput genomics methods (eg, RDA, SAGE). The number of such manuscripts, combined with the relative ease of uncritical data generation, has prompted the Editors to develop a set of general criteria to determine the suitability of manuscripts for review and publication. To enter the review process, the minimal criteria are as follows:

1. The salient results of the genomic screen must be confirmed by complementary methods (such as Northern blot analysis), for selected transcripts of greatest relevance or interest.

2. The principal findings must be reproducible, ie, confirmed with multiple chips using multiple sources of RNA.

3. Manuscripts should use gene expression profiles to explore mechanisms, either of well-defined physiological processes or of disease.

For those manuscripts that do undergo peer review, additional considerations will include the following:

1. the novelty and general biological interest of the results

2. an assessment of the relevance of the model system to the biological question

3. an assessment of the appropriateness and complexity of the screen used to address the biological question

4. the degree of novel mechanistic insight gained from the findings

5. technical issues such as variability and statistical rigor.