Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27600219›Full record

ArticleMicroarrays (Basel, Switzerland)2015

Tissue Microarray Technology for Molecular Applications: Investigation of Cross-Contamination between Tissue Samples Obtained from the Same Punching Device.

Erik Vassella, José A Galván, Inti Zlobec

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microarrays (Basel, Switzerland), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Erik VassellaTranslational Research Unit (TRU), Institute of Pathology, University of Bern, Murtenstrasse 31, Room L313, CH-3010 Bern, Switzerland. erik.vassella@pathology.unibe.ch.
José A GalvánTranslational Research Unit (TRU), Institute of Pathology, University of Bern, Murtenstrasse 31, Room L313, CH-3010 Bern, Switzerland. jose.galvan@pathology.unibe.ch.
Inti ZlobecTranslational Research Unit (TRU), Institute of Pathology, University of Bern, Murtenstrasse 31, Room L313, CH-3010 Bern, Switzerland. inti.zlobec@pathology.unibe.ch.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTissue microarray (TMA) technology allows rapid visualization of molecular markers by immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization. In addition, TMA instrumentation has the potential to assist in other applications: punches taken from donor blocks can be placed directly into tubes and used for nucleic acid analysis by PCR approaches. However, the question of possible cross-contamination between samples punched with the same device has frequently been raised but never addressed.

methodsTwo experiments were performed. (1) A block from mycobacterium tuberculosis (TB) positive tissue and a second from an uninfected patient were aligned side-by-side in an automated tissue microarrayer. Four 0.6 mm punches were cored from each sample and placed inside their corresponding tube. Between coring of each donor block, a mechanical cleaning step was performed by insertion of the puncher into a paraffin block. This sequence of coring and cleaning was repeated three times, alternating between positive and negative blocks. A fragment from the 6110 insertion sequence specific for mycobacterium tuberculosis was analyzed; (2) Four 0.6 mm punches were cored from three KRAS mutated colorectal cancer blocks, alternating with three different wild-type tissues using the same TMA instrument (sequence of coring: G12D, WT, G12V, WT, G13D and WT). Mechanical cleaning of the device between each donor block was made. Mutation analysis by pyrosequencing was carried out. This sequence of coring was repeated manually without any cleaning step between blocks. RESULTS/DISCUSSION: In both analyses, all alternating samples showed the expected result (samples 1, 3 and 5: positive or mutated, samples 2, 4 and 6: negative or wild-type). Similar results were obtained without cleaning step. These findings suggest that no cross-contamination of tissue samples occurs when donor blocks are punched using the same device, however a cleaning step is nonetheless recommended. Our result supports the use of TMA technology as an accessory to PCR applications.

Indexed as

biomarkerdigital pathologytissue microarray

Identifiers

PMID27600219
PMCPMC4996394

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.