Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9819809›Full record

ArticleMolecular biotechnology1998

A comparison of calcium phosphate coprecipitation and electroporation. Implications for studies on the genetic effects of DNA damage.

J A Nickoloff, L N Spirio, R J Reynolds

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular biotechnology, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 57% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

J A NickoloffDepartment of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque 87131, USA. jnickoloff@salud.unm.edu
L N Spirio
R J Reynolds
Los Alamos National Laboratory · USUniversity of New Mexico · US

Funding

NCI NIH HHS CA54079PHS HHS R01 55019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plasmid-based transfection assays provide a rapid means to measure homologous and nonhomologous recombination in mammalian cells. Often it is of interest to examine the stimulation of recombination by DNA damage induced by radiation, genotoxic chemicals, or nucleases. Transfection is frequently performed by using calcium phosphate coprecipitation (CPP), because this method is well suited for handling large sample sets, and it does not require expensive reagents or equipment. Alternative transfection methods include lipofection, microinjection, and electroporation. Since DNA strand breaks are known to stimulate both homologous and nonhomologous recombination, the induction of nonspecific damage during transfection would increase background recombination levels and thereby reduce the sensitivity of assays designed to detect the stimulation of recombination by experimentally induced DNA damage. In this article, we compare the stimulatory effects of nuclease-induced double-strand breaks (DSBs) on homologous and nonhomologous recombination for molecules transfected by CPP and by electroporation. Although electroporation yielded fewer transfectants, both nonhomologous and homologous recombination were stimulated by nuclease-induced DSBs to a greater degree than with CPP. Ionizing radiation is an effective agent for inducing DNA strand breaks, but previous studies using CPP generally showed little or no stimulation of homologous recombination among plasmids damaged with ionizing radiation. By contrast, we found clear dose-dependent enhancement of recombination with irradiated plasmids transfected using electroporation. Thus, electroporation provides a higher signal-to-noise ratio for transfection-based studies of damage-induced recombination, possibly reflecting less nonspecific damage to plasmid DNA during transfection of mammalian cells.

Indexed as

ElectroporationAnimalsCalcium PhosphatesCHO CellsCricetinaeDNADNA, CircularDNA DamageGenetic VectorsMutationPlasmidsRecombination, GeneticTransfectionalpha-tricalcium phosphatecalcium phosphatecalcium phosphate, dibasic, anhydrouscalcium phosphate, monobasic, anhydrousCalcium PhosphatesDNADNA, Circulartetracalcium phosphate

Identifiers

PMID9819809
OpenAlexW1984680920

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.