| Title |
An Improved Technique for Chromosomal Analysis of Human ES and iPS Cells
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Stem Cell Reviews and Reports, December 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12015-010-9224-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Daniela Moralli, Mohammed Yusuf, Mohammad A. Mandegar, Suhail Khoja, Zoia L. Monaco, Emanuela V. Volpi |
| Abstract |
Prolonged in vitro culture of human embryonic stem (hES) cells can result in chromosomal abnormalities believed to confer a selective advantage. This potential occurrence has crucial implications for the appropriate use of hES cells for research and therapeutic purposes. In view of this, time-point karyotypic evaluation to assess genetic stability is recommended as a necessary control test to be carried out during extensive 'passaging'. Standard techniques currently used for the cytogenetic assessment of ES cells include G-banding and/or Fluorescence in situ Hybridization (FISH)-based protocols for karyotype analysis, including M-FISH and SKY. Critical for both banding and FISH techniques are the number and quality of metaphase spreads available for analysis at the microscope. Protocols for chromosome preparation from hES and human induced pluripotent stem (hiPS) cells published so far appear to differ considerably from one laboratory to another. Here we present an optimized technique, in which both the number and the quality of chromosome metaphase spreads were substantially improved when compared to current standard techniques for chromosome preparations. We believe our protocol represents a significant advancement in this line of work, and has the required attributes of simplicity and consistency to be widely accepted as a reference method for high quality, fast chromosomal analysis of human ES and iPS cells. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 2 | 1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Iran, Islamic Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Russia | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 133 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 42 | 29% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 31 | 22% |
| Professor | 11 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 25 | 17% |
| Unknown | 14 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 64 | 44% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 38 | 26% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 3% |
| Engineering | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 5% |
| Unknown | 17 | 12% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 October 2020.
All research outputs
#3,201,358
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#82
of 1,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,686
of 190,784 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#2
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,036 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 190,784 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.