ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2021
INTACT vs. FANS for Cell-Type-Specific Nuclei Sorting: A Comprehensive Qualitative and Quantitative Comparison.
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multi-omics characterization of chronic social defeat stress recall-activated nuclei in Arc-GFP mice.Molecular psychiatry · 2026Article
- Integrating single-cell omic techniques to resolve the spatio-temporal complexity of arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis.Journal of experimental botany · 2026Review
- A single-nucleus multiomic study of preoptic area cells in prepubertal control vs prenatally androgenized female mice.Endocrinology · 2026Article
- Systemic mRNA-LNP administration in fetuses improves survival in a mouse model of spinal muscular atrophy.Molecular therapy. Methods & clinical development · 2025Article
- Characterization of transcriptional profiles associated with stress-induced neuronal activation in Arc-GFP mice.Molecular psychiatry · 2024Article
- Single-cell transcriptomics for the assessment of cardiac disease.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2023Review
- A protocol for single nucleus RNA-seq from frozen skeletal muscle.Life science alliance · 2023Article
- Review
- Cell-type specific profiling of histone post-translational modifications in the adult mouse striatum.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Somatic copy number variant load in neurons of healthy controls and Alzheimer's disease patients.Acta neuropathologica communications · 2022Article
- Resilience and the Gut Microbiome: Insights from Chronically Socially Stressed Wild-Type Mice.Microorganisms · 2022Article
- Widening spinal injury research to consider all supraspinal cell types: Why we must and how we can.Experimental neurology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Increasing numbers of studies seek to characterize the different cellular sub-populations present in mammalian tissues. The techniques "Isolation of Nuclei Tagged in Specific Cell Types" (INTACT) or "Fluorescence-Activated Nuclei Sorting" (FANS) are frequently used for isolating nuclei of specific cellular subtypes. These nuclei are then used for molecular characterization of the cellular sub-populations. Despite the increasing popularity of both techniques, little is known about their isolation efficiency, advantages, and disadvantages or downstream molecular effects. In our study, we compared the physical and molecular attributes of sfGFP+ nuclei isolated by the two methods-INTACT and FANS-from the neocortices of Arc-CreERT2 × CAG-Sun1/sfGFP animals. We identified differences in efficiency of sfGFP+ nuclei isolation, nuclear size as well as transcriptional (RNA-seq) and chromatin accessibility (ATAC-seq) states. Therefore, our study presents a comprehensive comparison between the two widely used nuclei sorting techniques, identifying the advantages and disadvantages for both INTACT and FANS. Our conclusions are summarized in a table to guide researchers in selecting the most suitable methodology for their individual experimental design.
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.