Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30894693›Full record

ArticleNature protocols2019

A non-enzymatic method for dissection of mouse bladder urothelial tissue.

Ming Lu, Kejia Zhu, Peter G Schulam, Toby C Chai

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nature protocols, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. A simpleFEMS microbes · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Characterization of theFASEB bioAdvances · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ming LuDepartment of Urology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. ming.lu@yale.edu.
Kejia ZhuDepartment of Urology, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, China.
Peter G SchulamDepartment of Urology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Toby C ChaiDepartment of Urology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. toby.chai@yale.edu.
Qilu Hospital of Shandong University · CNYale University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Urothelial cells contribute to bladder functions, including urine storage, urine emptying, and innate immune response. Functional studies of urothelial cells usually use either freshly isolated cells or cultured cells. Most methods of isolating urothelial cells require enzymes; however, these techniques remove proteins that connect the cells and disrupt the orientation of the cells within the multilayered urothelium. In addition, PCR or immunoblot results obtained from homogenates of bladder mucosa or whole bladder do not represent pure urothelial cells. We describe a dissection process that does not require enzymes and is able to obtain pure urothelial tissues from mice and humans. This method can isolate single urothelial cells for electrophysiology in situ and can also isolate pure urothelial tissue for PCR, microarray, and immunoblot procedures. The time required to obtain urothelial tissue from one mouse bladder is 15-20 min. This method is simple and time efficient as compared with alternative methods and therefore facilitates our understanding of urothelial biology.

Indexed as

AnimalsCells, CulturedCell SeparationDissectionEpithelial CellsFemaleHumansMiceMice, Inbred C57BLUrinary BladderUrothelium

Identifiers

PMID30894693
OpenAlexW2923844299

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.