Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31965296›Full record

ReviewMedical microbiology and immunology2020

FISH and chips: a review of microfluidic platforms for FISH analysis.

Pablo Rodriguez-Mateos, Nuno Filipe Azevedo, Carina Almeida, Nicole Pamme

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Medical microbiology and immunology, 2020. 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
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Pablo Rodriguez-MateosDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Hull, Cottingham Road, Hull, HU6 7RX, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7102-5024
Nuno Filipe AzevedoLEPABE-Laboratory for Process Engineering, Environment, Biotechnology and Energy, Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering of University of Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, s/n, 4200-465, Porto, Portugal.
Carina AlmeidaBiomode SA, Av. Mestre José Veiga, 4715-330, Braga, Portugal.
Nicole PammeDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Hull, Cottingham Road, Hull, HU6 7RX, UK. n.pamme@hull.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9391-9387
University of Hull · GBAssociation for the Development of Douro Viticulture · PTUniversidade do Porto · PT

Funding

H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions 765042
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) allows visualization of specific nucleic acid sequences within an intact cell or a tissue section. It is based on molecular recognition between a fluorescently labeled probe that penetrates the cell membrane of a fixed but intact sample and hybridizes to a nucleic acid sequence of interest within the cell, rendering a measurable signal. FISH has been applied to, for example, gene mapping, diagnosis of chromosomal aberrations and identification of pathogens in complex samples as well as detailed studies of cellular structure and function. However, FISH protocols are complex, they comprise of many fixation, incubation and washing steps involving a range of solvents and temperatures and are, thus, generally time consuming and labor intensive. The complexity of the process, the relatively high-priced fluorescent probes and the fairly high-end microscopy needed for readout render the whole process costly and have limited wider uptake of this powerful technique. In recent years, there have been attempts to transfer FISH assay protocols onto microfluidic lab-on-a-chip platforms, which reduces the required amount of sample and reagents, shortens incubation times and, thus, time to complete the protocol, and finally has the potential for automating the process. Here, we review the wide variety of approaches for lab-on-chip-based FISH that have been demonstrated at proof-of-concept stage, ranging from FISH analysis of immobilized cell layers, and cells trapped in arrays, to FISH on tissue slices. Some researchers have aimed to develop simple devices that interface with existing equipment and workflows, whilst others have aimed to integrate the entire FISH protocol into a fully autonomous FISH on-chip system. Whilst the technical possibilities for FISH on-chip are clearly demonstrated, only a small number of approaches have so far been converted into off-the-shelf products for wider use beyond the research laboratory.

Indexed as

Lab-On-A-Chip DevicesClinical Laboratory TechniquesIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceMicrofluidic Analytical TechniquesFluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)Lab-on-a-Chip (LOC)MicrofluidicsMicrofluidics-assisted FISHµFISH

Identifiers

PMID31965296
PMCPMC7248050
OpenAlexW3001813095

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.