ArticleMolecular pathology : MP2003
Improved resolution by mounting of tissue sections for laser microdissection.
Article in Molecular pathology : MP, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Laser Capture Microdissection of Glioma Subregions for Spatial and Molecular Characterization of Intratumoral Heterogeneity, Oncostreams, and Invasion.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2020Article
- Microirradiation techniques in radiobiological research.Journal of biosciences · 2015Review
- Loss of heterozygosity is present in SEC63 germline carriers with polycystic liver disease.PloS one · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaser microbeam microdissection has greatly facilitated the procurement of specific cell populations from tissue sections. However, the fact that a coverslip is not used means that the morphology of the tissue sections is often poor.
aimsTo develop a mounting method that greatly improves the morphological quality of tissue sections for laser microbeam microdissection purposes so that the identification of target cells can be facilitated.
methodsFresh frozen tissue and formalin fixed, paraffin wax embedded tissue specimens were used to test the morphological quality of mounted and unmounted tissue. The mounting solution consisted of an adhesive gum and blue ink diluted in water. Interference of the mounting solution with DNA quality was analysed by the polymerase chain reaction using 10-2000 cells isolated by microdissection from mounted and unmounted tissue.
resultsThe mounting solution greatly improved the morphology of tissue sections for laser microdissection purposes and had no detrimental effects on the isolation and efficiency of amplification of DNA. One disadvantage was that the mounting solution reduced the cutting efficiency of the ultraviolet laser. To minimise this effect, the mounting solution should be diluted as much as possible. Furthermore, the addition of blue ink to the mounting medium restores the cutting efficiency of the laser.
conclusionsThe mounting solution is easy to prepare and apply and can be combined with various staining methods without compromising the quality of the DNA extracted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.