ArticleBiology methods & protocols2025
An improved cell nuclear isolation method.
Article in Biology methods & protocols, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Direct and high-yield chromatin isolation by SBCP unlocks superior plant proteomics and epigenomic profiling.Plant cell reports · 2026Article
- HOXA2 exerts anti-renal fibrosis effects through reducing endoplasmic reticulum stress via the upregulation of SIRT1.Communications biology · 2025Article
- The Medical Basis for the Photoluminescence of Indocyanine Green.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nuclear isolation is crucial for studying gene expression and regulatory mechanisms in eukaryotic cells. This study aimed to improve nuclear isolation and compare the yield, purity, and efficiency of several methods. Human umbilical vein endothelial cells were used to evaluate four different techniques: sucrose centrifugation, a simplified method, homogenization, and the NE-PER kit. For sucrose centrifugation, cells were scraped in Tween buffer, washed with sucrose buffer, and homogenized in a Dounce homogenizer. The pellet was washed with glycerol buffer to isolate the nuclei. In the simplified method, cells were scraped in scraping buffer, washed with sucrose buffer, and the pellet was washed with glycerol buffer to isolate the nuclei. For homogenization, cells were washed with phosphate buffered saline, followed by two washes in extract buffer and lysed with 10 strokes in a Kontes Dounce homogenizer. The NE-PER kit was used according to the manufacturer's protocol. Nuclei isolated by each method were tested by immunoblotting, co-immunoprecipitation (Co-IP), and chromatin immunoprecipitation (Ch-IP) assays. The simplified method produced nuclei with fewer organelles and less cytoplasm than those isolated by homogenization or the NE-PER kit. It was similarly effective as sucrose centrifugation but faster. Co-IP and Ch-IP assays confirmed that the simplified method enriched target proteins and DNA fragments. Overall, the simplified method provides a highly pure nuclear sample optimal for downstream applications requiring purified nuclei.
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.