Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20337557›Full record

ArticleJournal of insect science (Online)2007

In vivo electroporation of DNA into the wing epidermis of the butterfly, Bicyclus anynana.

Kyle Golden, Veena Sagi, Nathan Markwarth, Bin Chen, Antónia Monteiro

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of insect science (Online), 2007. 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, top 85% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kyle GoldenDepartment of Biological Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA.
Veena Sagi
Nathan Markwarth
Bin Chen
Antónia Monteiro
University at Buffalo, State University of New York · USYale University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The direct transfer of genes into differentiated insect tissues is a useful method of determining gene function because it circumvents the need to perform germ line transformations and of having information on tissue-specific gene promoters. Here in vivo gene delivery is achieved through electroporation of a reporter gene into the pupal forewing of the butterfly Bicyclus anynana (Butler) (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Plasmids containing the coding sequence for enhanced green fluorescent protein (EGFP), driven by the Drosophila heat-shock promoter hsp70, were successfully expressed in epidermal cells after plasmid injection followed by electroporation and heat shock. EGFP expression was restricted to the vicinity of the injection and electroporation site, but the number of transformed cells varied from a few to over 5000 cells. Electroporation parameters were optimized in order to maximize the number of transformed cells while minimizing the extent of damage to the adult wing. While certain electrical parameters were well tolerated by the wing tissue, the physical damage caused by the insertion of the tungsten electrodes led to frequent disruptions of the adult wing pattern around the puncture sites. While this technique can be useful to test the correct expression of marker genes (such as EGFP) in newly build plasmids immediately following their injection, its potential use in testing the function of candidate genes in wing pattern formation is limited.

Indexed as

ElectroporationAnimalsButterfliesDNAEpidermisGene Expression Regulation, DevelopmentalPlasmidsPupaTransforming Growth Factor betaWings, AnimalDNATransforming Growth Factor beta

Identifiers

PMID20337557
PMCPMC2999444
OpenAlexW2170833393

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.