“…Although differences in experimental design and assay sensitivity limit the degree to which embryological studies from different laboratories may be compared, comparisons of published data indicate that the QADB has generally yielded expression data that are in good agreement with data obtained by alternative methods. For example, temporal patterns of expression observed for a number of transcripts (e.g., tPA, Hprt, G protein ␣S, ␣q, ␣i2, ␣13, ␣11, and ␣14 isoforms, c-myc, Pgk1, U2afbp-rs, Bcl-2, Bax, Bcl-x, Bad, Bcl-w, Caspase-2, Na ϩ /K ϩ -ATPase ␣1 subunit) are very similar (after accounting for differences in frequency of sampling, the number of time intervals assayed, and the quantitative resolution of assay methods used) to the patterns observed with other methods, such as RT-PCR, Northern blotting, and Western blotting, or in some cases to the inferred pattern of embryonic gene expression based on the results of experimental treatments such as the use of antisense oligonucleotides (compare above references with the following: tPA, [42][43][44] Hprt, [45]; G proteins, [46]; c-myc, [47,48]; Pgk1, [27]; U2afbp-rs, [49]; Bcl-2, Bax, Bcl-x, Bad, Bcl-w, Caspase-2, [50,51]; Na ϩ /K ϩ -ATPase ␣1 subunit, [52,53]). The QADB method has even been able to detect the low-abundance Xist RNA expression at the 2-cell stage in mouse embryos [31], consistent with XIST RNA expression in the early (4-cell-stage) human embryo [54] and Xist promoter-driven expression of a transgene in mouse 2-cell embryos [55].…”