SynthesisHistochemistry and cell biology2020
Molecular analysis of H&E- and Papanicolau-stained samples-systematic review.
Synthesis in Histochemistry and cell biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Novel Multimodal Imaging System for High-Resolution and High-Contrast Tissue Segmentation Based on Chemical Properties.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A Critical Issue in Lung Cancer Cytology and Small Biopsies: DNA and RNA Extraction from Archival Stained Slides for Biomarker Detection through Real Time PCR and NGS-The Experience in Pathological Anatomy Unit.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Histologically resolved multiomics enables precise molecular profiling of human intratumor heterogeneity.PLoS biology · 2022Article
- In focus in HCB.Histochemistry and cell biology · 2020Article
- Minimally Invasive Cytopathology and Accurate Diagnosis: Technical Procedures and Ancillary Techniques.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Molecular pathology allows the identification of causative agents in infectious diseases and detection of biomarkers important for prediction of disease susceptibility, diagnosis and personalized therapy. Accordingly, nucleic acid-based methods have gained a special role in clinical laboratories particularly to evaluate solid and hematological tumors. Extraction of nucleic acids is commonly performed in microdissected formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) or cytological samples that had been previously evaluated through the use of hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) or Papanicolau (Pap) stains, respectively. Although the effect of both stains on nucleic acids integrity has been explored by several authors, the results are not consistent and require further examination. Accordingly, the goal of this review was to assess the influence of H&E and Pap stains on DNA and RNA integrity and to address the mechanism by which each staining compromises molecular based-analysis. The analyzed studies demonstrate that H&E- and Pap-staining result in low DNA recovery and some degree of DNA fragmentation. Additionally, it is concluded that hemalum inhibits PCR by interfering with DNA extraction, preventing DNA polymerase attachment and possibly by rescuing divalent cations. Accordingly, proper sample purification and adjustment of PCR conditions are of key importance to achieve satisfactory results by PCR in H&E- and Pap-stained samples. Furthermore, although H&E results in RNA fragmentation, it is possible to perform expression analysis in H&E-stained frozen sections, using RNase-free conditions, low amounts of hematoxylin and a rapid protocol from sample collection to RNA analysis. It The effect of Pap-staining on RNA integrity remains to be determined.
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.