Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29630057›Full record

ArticleJournal of visualized experiments : JoVE2018

A Simple Method for High Throughput Chemical Screening in Caenorhabditis Elegans.

Mark Lucanic, Theo Garrett, Matthew S Gill, Gordon J Lithgow

Abstract readVideo-Audio Media
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Quo VadisMetabolites · 2021
    Review
  8. microPublication biology · 2021
    Article
  9. Frontiers in aging · 2021
    Review
  10. Phenotypic Screening inPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Review
  11. 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

4 authors.

Mark LucanicThe Buck Institute for Research on Aging; mlucanic@buckinstitute.org.
Theo GarrettThe Buck Institute for Research on Aging.
Matthew S GillThe Scripps Research Institute Center on Aging.
Gordon J LithgowThe Buck Institute for Research on Aging; glithgow@buckinstitute.org.

Funding

Training in Basic Research on Aging and Age-Related DiseaseT32AG000266 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIF-LAWRENC BERKELEY LAB · PI Lisa M Ellerby · 1998 to 2026
$13.8M
Enhancing and expanding the CGC Strain CollectionP40OD010440 · OD · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI Aric L Daul, Ann E. Rougvie · 2012 to 2026
$7.5M
Pharmacology of LIfespan ExtensionR01AG029631 · NIA · BUCK INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH ON AGING · PI LITHGOW, GORDON J · 2008 to 2018
$5.4M
Interdisciplinary Research Consortium in GeroscienceUL1RR024917 · NCRR · BUCK INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH ON AGING · PI LITHGOW, GORDON J. · 2007 to 2007
$605k
NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024917NIA NIH HHS R01 AG029631NIA NIH HHS T32 AG000266NIH HHS P40 OD010440
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Caenorhabditis elegans is a useful organism for testing chemical effects on physiology. Whole organism small molecule screens offer significant advantages for identifying biologically active chemical structures that can modify complex phenotypes such as lifespan. Described here is a simple protocol for producing hundreds of 96-well culture plates with fairly consistent numbers of C. elegans in each well. Next, we specified how to use these cultures to screen thousands of chemicals for effects on the lifespan of the nematode C. elegans. This protocol makes use of temperature sensitive sterile strains, agar plate conditions, and simple animal handling to facilitate the rapid and high throughput production of synchronized animal cultures for screening.

Indexed as

AnimalsCaenorhabditis elegansHigh-Throughput Screening Assays

Identifiers

PMID29630057
PMCPMC5933220

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.