1994
DOI: 10.1002/cyto.990160203
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Quantitative analysis of chromosome in situ hybridization signal in paraffin‐embedded tissue sections

Abstract: Interphase cytogenetic analysis using chromosome‐specific probes is increasingly being used to detect chromosomal aberrations on paraffin‐embedded tissue sections. However, quantitative analysis of the hybridization signal is confounded by the nuclear slicing that occurs during sectioning. To determine the sensitivity and accuracy of chromosome in situ hybridization for detecting numerical chromosomal aberrations on paraffin‐embedded sections, in situ hybridization was performed on sections derived from mixtur… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
28
0

Year Published

1995
1995
2006
2006

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
1
28
0
Order By: Relevance
“…[21][22][23] In general, quantitative analysis of thin sections is compromised by the fact that most cells are not wholly intact in thin sections, and the error becomes greater when the object size is larger relative to section thickness. In this study, we initially detected EGFP þ F-actin þ tubular epithelial cells in 6-mm cryostat sections, as this thickness was within the range of those used in other studies (commonly 4-8 mm thickness sections).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[21][22][23] In general, quantitative analysis of thin sections is compromised by the fact that most cells are not wholly intact in thin sections, and the error becomes greater when the object size is larger relative to section thickness. In this study, we initially detected EGFP þ F-actin þ tubular epithelial cells in 6-mm cryostat sections, as this thickness was within the range of those used in other studies (commonly 4-8 mm thickness sections).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The tissue showed the same morphology, whereas the cytogelatter findings contradict the statement that, due to trun-netic status appeared different. As shown above, loss of cation effects, monosomy in a significant proportion of information concerning focal cytogenetic alterations is cells will be easily missed (Dhingra et al 1994). …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After hybridization, the slides were washed in 50% formamide in 2X SSC (pH 7.0) at room temperature and then washed in 0.1X SSC at 37 ° C. The hybridization signal was detected by the immunoperoxidase technique using the Vectastain ABC kit (Vector) and diaminobenzidine (DAB) as the chromogen substrate, as previously described [12]. Signals were quantitated as previously described [19]. The number of signal spots on a minimum of 100 nuclei in a given area was counted using previously described criteria [19].…”
Section: Chromosomal In Situ Hybridizationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Signals were quantitated as previously described [19]. The number of signal spots on a minimum of 100 nuclei in a given area was counted using previously described criteria [19]. A minimum of five randomly chosen areas were counted on each slide from each cell block.…”
Section: Chromosomal In Situ Hybridizationmentioning
confidence: 99%