Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15699569›Full record

ReviewMolecular biotechnology2005

Optimal molecular profiling of tissue and tissue components: defining the best processing and microdissection methods for biomedical applications.

G Steven Bova, Isam A Eltoum, John A Kiernan, Gene P Siegal, Andra R Frost, Carolyn J M Best, John W Gillespie, Gloria H Su, Michael R Emmert-Buck

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular biotechnology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Why do patients with cancer die?Nature reviews. Cancer · 2024
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Why is it crucial to reintegrate pathology into cancer research?BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2011
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

G Steven BovaDepartment of Pathology, Institute of Genetic Medicine, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, PELICAN Laboratory, Carnegie 628, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA. gbov@jhmi.edu
Isam A Eltoum
John A Kiernan
Gene P Siegal
Andra R Frost
Carolyn J M Best
John W Gillespie
Gloria H Su
Michael R Emmert-Buck
University of Alabama at Birmingham · USNational Institutes of Health · USColumbia University · USJohns Hopkins Hospital · USScience Applications International Corporation (United States) · USWestern University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Isolation of well-preserved pure cell populations is a prerequisite for sound studies of the molecular basis of any tissue-based biological phenomenon. This article reviews current methods for obtaining anatomically specific signals from molecules isolated from tissues, a basic requirement for productive linking of phenotype and genotype. The quality of samples isolated from tissue and used for molecular analysis is often glossed over or omitted from publications, making interpretation and replication of data difficult or impossible. Fortunately, recently developed techniques allow life scientists to better document and control the quality of samples used for a given assay, creating a foundation for improvement in this area. Tissue processing for molecular studies usually involves some or all of the following steps: tissue collection, gross dissection/identification, fixation, processing/embedding, storage/archiving, sectioning, staining, microdissection/annotation, and pure analyte labeling/identification and quantification. We provide a detailed comparison of some current tissue microdissection technologies, and provide detailed example protocols for tissue component handling upstream and downstream from microdissection. We also discuss some of the physical and chemical issues related to optimal tissue processing, and include methods specific to cytology specimens. We encourage each laboratory to use these as a starting point for optimization of their overall process of moving from collected tissue to high quality, appropriately anatomically tagged scientific results. In optimized protocols is a source of inefficiency in current life science research. Improvement in this area will significantly increase life science quality and productivity. The article is divided into introduction, materials, protocols, and notes sections. Because many protocols are covered in each of these sections, information relating to a single protocol is not contiguous. To get the greatest benefit from this article, readers are advised to read through the entire article first, identify protocols appropriate to their laboratory for each step in their workflow, and then reread entries in each section pertaining to each of these single protocols.

Indexed as

BiomarkersCell SeparationConnective Tissue CellsGene Expression ProfilingMicrodissectionMolecular BiologyProteomeSpecimen HandlingTissue PreservationBiomarkersProteome

Identifiers

PMID15699569
OpenAlexW2748742585

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.