Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35159153›Full record

ReviewCells2022

Current Methods and Pipelines for Image-Based Quantitation of Nuclear Shape and Nuclear Envelope Abnormalities.

Anne F J Janssen, Sophia Y Breusegem, Delphine Larrieu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cells, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. A STEDable BFMembranes · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Anne F J JanssenDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Addenbrookes Biomedical Campus, Cambridge Institute for Medical Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0XY, UK.
Sophia Y BreusegemDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Addenbrookes Biomedical Campus, Cambridge Institute for Medical Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0XY, UK.
Delphine LarrieuDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Addenbrookes Biomedical Campus, Cambridge Institute for Medical Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0XY, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2335-9361

Funding

Federation of European Biochemical Societies N/AWellcome Trust 206242/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Any given cell type has an associated "normal" nuclear morphology, which is important to maintain proper cellular functioning and safeguard genomic integrity. Deviations from this can be indicative of diseases such as cancer or premature aging syndrome. To accurately assess nuclear abnormalities, it is important to use quantitative measures of nuclear morphology. Here, we give an overview of several nuclear abnormalities, including micronuclei, nuclear envelope invaginations, blebs and ruptures, and review the current methods used for image-based quantification of these abnormalities. We discuss several parameters that can be used to quantify nuclear shape and compare their outputs using example images. In addition, we present new pipelines for quantitative analysis of nuclear blebs and invaginations. Quantitative analyses of nuclear aberrations and shape will be important in a wide range of applications, from assessments of cancer cell anomalies to studies of nucleus deformability under mechanical or other types of stress.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsNuclear EnvelopeCell NucleusHumanslaminanuclear envelopenuclear envelope abnormalitynuclear morphology

Identifiers

PMID35159153
PMCPMC8834579

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.