ArticleMolecular biotechnology1998
A comparison of calcium phosphate coprecipitation and electroporation. Implications for studies on the genetic effects of DNA damage.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Experimental Electrical and Biological Parameters on Gene Transfer by Electroporation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Pharmaceutics · 2022Review
- DNA repair of clustered lesions in mammalian cells: involvement of non-homologous end-joining.Nucleic acids research · 2008Article
- Oxidative DNA adducts and DNA-protein cross-links are the major DNA lesions induced by arsenite.Environmental health perspectives · 2002Review
- Protective Effects of Baicalin on Arsenic Trioxide-induced Oxidative Damage and Apoptosis in Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
- Protective Effects of Crocetin on Arsenic Trioxide-induced Oxidative Stress in Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.