Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33381282›Full record

ArticleCurrent protocols essential laboratory techniques2020

Validation of a Novel, Flash-Freezing Method: Aluminum Platform.

Ahmet Imrali, Christine S Hughes, Abigail S Coetzee, Francesca R Delvecchio, Amina Saad, Rhiannon Roberts, Claude Chelala, Jo-Anne ChinAleong, Hemant M Kocher

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current protocols essential laboratory techniques, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Validation of a Novel, Flash-Freezing Method: Aluminum Platform.Current protocols essential laboratory techniques · 2020
    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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ahmet ImraliPancreatic Cancer Research Fund Tissue Bank (PCRFTB) London United Kingdom.
Christine S HughesPancreatic Cancer Research Fund Tissue Bank (PCRFTB) London United Kingdom.
Abigail S CoetzeeCentre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute-A CR-UK Centre of Excellence Queen Mary University of London Charterhouse Square London United Kingdom.
Francesca R DelvecchioCentre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute-A CR-UK Centre of Excellence Queen Mary University of London Charterhouse Square London United Kingdom.
Amina SaadPancreatic Cancer Research Fund Tissue Bank (PCRFTB) London United Kingdom.
Rhiannon RobertsPancreatic Cancer Research Fund Tissue Bank (PCRFTB) London United Kingdom.
Claude ChelalaPancreatic Cancer Research Fund Tissue Bank (PCRFTB) London United Kingdom.
Jo-Anne ChinAleongBarts and the London HPB Centre, Department of Surgery and Pathology, Barts Health NHS Trust The Royal London Hospital London United Kingdom.
Hemant M KocherPancreatic Cancer Research Fund Tissue Bank (PCRFTB) London United Kingdom.
Pancreatic Cancer Research Fund · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBBarts Health NHS Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stored biological materials should have minimal pre-analytical variations in order to provide researchers with high-quality samples that will give reliable and reproducible results, yet methods of storage should be easy to implement, with minimal cost and health hazard. Frozen tissue samples are a valuable biological resource. Here we compare different methods, such as liquid nitrogen (LN) or dry ice (DI), to a cheap and safe alternative using an aluminum platform (AP). Murine fresh liver and pancreas tissues were used with varying lengths of warm ischemia time. Quality assessment was based on histological evaluation, DNA and RNA extraction and quantification, and RNA degradation analysis, as well preservation of antigens for immunofluorescence, in a blinded manner. Both in superficial and deep tissue sections, based on histological assessment, AP is superior to DI, or as good as LN techniques in terms of presence of ice crystals, cutting artifacts, and overall quality/structural preservation. DNA and RNA were successfully extracted in reasonable quantities from all freezing techniques, but RNA degradation was seen for pancreas samples across all techniques. Immunofluorescence with cytokeratin8 (CK-8), alpha smooth muscle actin (αSMA), CD3, and B220 shows equally good outcomes for AP and LN, which are better than DI. The aluminum platform is a cheap, yet reliable method to freeze samples, rapidly preserving histological, antigenic, and DNA/RNA quality. Wider testing is required across different sample types. © 2020 The Authors.

Indexed as

DNAfresh tissueimmunofluorescenceliverpancreasRNA

Identifiers

PMID33381282
PMCPMC7757392
OpenAlexW3108571570

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.