ArticleCytotechnology2000
Obtaining cell proliferation for chromosome preparation in gill tissue culture of the oyster Crassostrea gigas.
Article in Cytotechnology, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Marine invertebrate cell cultures: new millennium trends.Marine biotechnology (New York, N.Y.)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present results were obtained in the course of theadjustment to the oyster Crassostrea gigas of atissue culture technique recently developed for themussel Mytilus edulis. With respect to theprotocol originally described, the effects of twomodifications are reported: (1) replacement of chickembryo extract by chicken serum for medium enrichment,and (2) achievement of cultures in rotating tubes(roller drum) in place of stationary condition.Paradoxical results were obtained: whereas takenseparately, each modification exerted a negativeeffect which is statistically significant, combinated,they exerted a high positive effect representing athree-fold increase of the mean metaphase spreadnumber per slide (i.e. 71.5). Hypotheses are proposedto explain the mechanisms involved. It is suggestedthat the two additives work differently and thatcultures with chick embryo extract enriched mediumcould not withstand the condition generated by theroller drum. Conversely, cultures performed withchicken serum enriched medium would be in a betterphysiological state and the roller allow to obtain acell proliferation after only six days of incubation.
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.