ArticleTransgenic research2015
Lessons from mouse chimaera experiments with a reiterated transgene marker: revised marker criteria and a review of chimaera markers.
Article in Transgenic research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Selection against BALB/c strain cells in mouse chimaeras.Biology open · 2018Article
- Survival of glucose phosphate isomerase null somatic cells and germ cells in adult mouse chimaeras.Biology open · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Recent reports of a new generation of ubiquitous transgenic chimaera markers prompted us to consider the criteria used to evaluate new chimaera markers and develop more objective assessment methods. To investigate this experimentally we used several series of fetal and adult chimaeras, carrying an older, multi-copy transgenic marker. We used two additional independent markers and objective, quantitative criteria for cell selection and cell mixing to investigate quantitative and spatial aspects of developmental neutrality. We also suggest how the quantitative analysis we used could be simplified for future use with other markers. As a result, we recommend a five-step procedure for investigators to evaluate new chimaera markers based partly on criteria proposed previously but with a greater emphasis on examining the developmental neutrality of prospective new markers. These five steps comprise (1) review of published information, (2) evaluation of marker detection, (3) genetic crosses to check for effects on viability and growth, (4) comparisons of chimaeras with and without the marker and (5) analysis of chimaeras with both cell populations labelled. Finally, we review a number of different chimaera markers and evaluate them using the extended set of criteria. These comparisons indicate that, although the new generation of ubiquitous fluorescent markers are the best of those currently available and fulfil most of the criteria required of a chimaera marker, further work is required to determine whether they are developmentally neutral.
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.