Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29059327›Full record

ArticleNucleic acids research2018

Evaluation of fluorescence in situ hybridization techniques to study long non-coding RNA expression in cultured cells.

Ricardo J Soares, Giulia Maglieri, Tony Gutschner, Sven Diederichs, Anders H Lund, Boye S Nielsen, Kim Holmstrøm

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Nucleic acids research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Applications and development of in situ nucleic acid visualization techniques.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The Key Characteristics of Carcinogens: Relationship to the Hallmarks of Cancer, Relevant Biomarkers, and Assays to Measure Them.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Ricardo J SoaresBioneer A/S, Kogle Allé 2, DK-2970 Hørsholm, Denmark.
Giulia MaglieriBiotech Research and Innovation Centre, University of Copenhagen, DK-2200 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Tony GutschnerDivision of RNA Biology & Cancer (B150), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Sven DiederichsDivision of RNA Biology & Cancer (B150), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Anders H LundBiotech Research and Innovation Centre, University of Copenhagen, DK-2200 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Boye S NielsenBioneer A/S, Kogle Allé 2, DK-2970 Hørsholm, Denmark.
Kim HolmstrømBioneer A/S, Kogle Allé 2, DK-2970 Hørsholm, Denmark.
Bioneer (Denmark) · DKUniversity of Copenhagen · DKGerman Cancer Research Center · DEUniversity of Freiburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deciphering the functions of long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) is facilitated by visualization of their subcellular localization using in situ hybridization (ISH) techniques. We evaluated four different ISH methods for detection of MALAT1 and CYTOR in cultured cells: a multiple probe detection approach with or without enzymatic signal amplification, a branched-DNA (bDNA) probe and an LNA-modified probe with enzymatic signal amplification. All four methods adequately stained MALAT1 in the nucleus in all of three cell lines investigated, HeLa, NHDF and T47D, and three of the methods detected the less expressed CYTOR. The sensitivity of the four ISH methods was evaluated by image analysis. In all three cell lines, the two methods involving enzymatic amplification gave the most intense MALAT1 signal, but the signal-to-background ratios were not different. CYTOR was best detected using the bDNA method. All four ISH methods showed significantly reduced MALAT1 signal in knock-out cells, and siRNA-induced knock-down of CYTOR resulted in significantly reduced CYTOR ISH signal, indicating good specificity of the probe designs and detection systems. Our data suggest that the ISH methods allow detection of both abundant and less abundantly expressed lncRNAs, although the latter required the use of the most specific and sensitive probe detection system.

Indexed as

Gene Expression RegulationA549 CellsCell LineCell Line, TumorCell NucleusDNA ProbesGene AmplificationHeLa CellsHumansIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceMCF-7 CellsReproducibility of ResultsRNA, Long NoncodingDNA ProbesMALAT1 long non-coding RNA, humanRNA, Long Noncoding

Identifiers

PMID29059327
PMCPMC5758870
OpenAlexW2766997013

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.