ArticleScientific reports2017
A novel automatic quantification method for high-content screening analysis of DNA double strand-break response.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- High-throughput screening strategies for space-based radiation countermeasure discovery.Life sciences in space research · 2022Review
- Applications of Neural Networks in Biomedical Data Analysis.Biomedicines · 2022Review
- DeepFoci: Deep learning-based algorithm for fast automatic analysis of DNA double-strand break ionizing radiation-induced foci.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2021Article
- A surrogate reporter system for multiplexable evaluation of CRISPR/Cas9 in targeted mutagenesis.Scientific reports · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-content screening is commonly used in studies of the DNA damage response. The double-strand break (DSB) is one of the most harmful types of DNA damage lesions. The conventional method used to quantify DSBs is γH2AX foci counting, which requires manual adjustment and preset parameters and is usually regarded as imprecise, time-consuming, poorly reproducible, and inaccurate. Therefore, a robust automatic alternative method is highly desired. In this manuscript, we present a new method for quantifying DSBs which involves automatic image cropping, automatic foci-segmentation and fluorescent intensity measurement. Furthermore, an additional function was added for standardizing the measurement of DSB response inhibition based on co-localization analysis. We tested the method with a well-known inhibitor of DSB response. The new method requires only one preset parameter, which effectively minimizes operator-dependent variations. Compared with conventional methods, the new method detected a higher percentage difference of foci formation between different cells, which can improve measurement accuracy. The effects of the inhibitor on DSB response were successfully quantified with the new method (p = 0.000). The advantages of this method in terms of reliability, automation and simplicity show its potential in quantitative fluorescence imaging studies and high-content screening for compounds and factors involved in DSB response.
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.