ArticleJournal of medical genetics1998
A simple and efficient method for microdissection and microFISH.
Article in Journal of medical genetics, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.
- DNA content, repeatome composition and origin of the Zea mays micronuclei.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Plant Chromosome-Specific Probes by Microdissection of a Single Chromosome: Is That a Reality?Frontiers in plant science · 2020Article
- Microdissection of the AHereditas · 2017Article
- Design and validation of a pericentromeric BAC clone set aimed at improving diagnosis and phenotype prediction of supernumerary marker chromosomes.Molecular cytogenetics · 2013Article
- Formation of novel CENP-A domains on tandem repetitive DNA and across chromosome breakpoints on human chromosome 8q21 neocentromeres.Chromosoma · 2011Article
- Multiplex ligation dependent probe amplification (MLPA) for rapid distinction between unique sequence positive and negative marker chromosomes in prenatal diagnosis.Molecular cytogenetics · 2011Article
- Meiotic chromosomes as templates for microdissection.Chromosome research : an international journal on the molecular, supramolecular and evolutionary aspects of chromosome biology · 2002Article
- Evaluation of the reliability of chromosomal imbalances detected by combined use of universal DNA amplification and comparative genomic hybridization.Japanese journal of cancer research : Gann · 2000Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A simple and efficient method for the dissection of (marker) chromosomes, (micro)nuclei, and chromosome regions is presented. Before microdissection, metaphases are overlaid with milli-Q water to rehydrate the chromosomes, which makes them soft and sticky. The dissected chromosome fragments are dissolved without proteinase-K or topoisomerase treatment and directly amplified using a degenerate oligonucleotide primed polymerase chain reaction (DOP-PCR). The advantages of this microFISH method over previously reported methods are: (1) microdissection in this way is very fast; (2) a chromosome, marker, (micro)nucleus, or chromosome region is collected as a whole using only one microneedle; (3) the dissected material sticks tightly to the needle without the risk of getting lost; (4) no Sequenase is used in the DOP-PCR reaction which reduces the risk of contamination.
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.