Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18528736›Full record

ArticleIn vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal

Tandem use of immunofluorescent and DNA staining assays to validate nested PCR detection of mycoplasma.

Ashok Kumar, Arif Ali, Lakshmana K Yerneni

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in In vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Ashok KumarCell Biology, Institute of Pathology (ICMR), P. B. No. 4909, Safdarjang Hospital Campus, New Delhi, Delhi 110029, India.
Arif Ali
Lakshmana K Yerneni

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mycoplasma contamination in cell culture is a serious setback to cell culturists across the world with a very high rate of reported occurrence particularly because of difficult early detection. Out of a variety of detection methods known, the double-step nested polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based detection of mycoplasma in cell culture has been critically viewed upon because of chances of producing reliable results. A nested PCR technique, described to detect a large range of cell-culture-contaminating mycoplasma species, with greater sensitivity to detect as low a contamination as a few organisms, was compared with the results from two cytological techniques employed in tandem. These are DNA staining using Hoechst, the gold standard, and an immunofluorescent assay using a highly specific monoclonal antibody. The study undertaken on randomly collected cell cultures revealed a false-negative and several false-positive results in comparison to the cytological methods employed. The observations were particularly more unambiguous with the immunofluorescent assay employed in the study while simultaneously employed Hoechst staining serving as an indicator of bacterial contamination. There is a general apprehension that genus-specific PCR approaches could be associated with inaccurate outcome and only species-specific PCRs may be satisfactory in routine screening for mycoplasma contamination in cell cultures. At this juncture, it may be suggested that caution must be exercised while adopting the two-step nested PCR-based detection approaches, and the simultaneous employment of cytological methods used in this investigation could prove to be practicable in the proper interpretation of results.

Indexed as

Biological AssayDNA, BacterialFalse Negative ReactionsFalse Positive ReactionsFluorescent Antibody TechniqueHumansMycoplasmaPolymerase Chain ReactionReproducibility of ResultsDNA, Bacterial

Identifiers

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.