MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100941174 · doi:10.1002/cyto.10053

Telomere length measurement by fluorescence in situ hybridization and flow cytometry: Tips and pitfalls

2002· article· en· W2100941174 on OpenAlexaff
Gabriela M. Baerlocher, Jennifer Sze Man Mak, Teri Tien, Peter M. Lansdorp

Bibliographic record

VenueCytometry · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelomeres, Telomerase, and Senescence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Science FoundationNational Institutes of HealthNational Cancer InstituteBernische KrebsligaSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsTelomereFluorescence in situ hybridizationMolecular biologyFlow cytometryBiologyPeptide nucleic acidSouthern blotIn situ hybridizationDNAChemistryChromosomeGeneticsGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Telomeres containing noncoding DNA repeats at the end of the chromosomes are essential for chromosomal stability and are implicated in regulating the replication and senescence of cells. The gradual loss of telomere repeats in cells has been linked to aging and tumor development and methods to measure telomere length are of increasing interest. At least three methods for measuring the length of telomere repeats have been described: Southern blot analysis and quantitative fluorescence in situ hybridization using either digital fluorescence microscopy (Q-FISH) or flow cytometry (flow-FISH). Both Southern blot analysis and Q-FISH have specific limitations and are time-consuming, whereas the flow-FISH technique requires relatively few cells (10(5)) and can be completed in a single day. A further advantage of the flow-FISH method is that data on the telomere length from individual cells and subsets of cells (lymphocytes and granulocytes) can be acquired from the same sample. In order to obtain accurate and reproducible results using the flow-FISH technique, we systematically explored the influence of various steps in the protocol on telomere length values and established an acceptable range for the most critical parameters. METHODS: Isolated leukocytes from whole blood are denatured by heat and 70%/75% formamide, then hybridized with or without a telomere-specific fluorescein isothiocyante (FITC)-conjugated peptide nucleic acid probe (PNA). Unbound telomere PNA is washed away, the DNA is counterstained, and telomere fluorescence is measured on a flow cytometer using an argon ion laser (488 nm) to excite FITC. For each sample, duplicates of telomere PNA-stained and unstained tubes are analyzed. RESULTS: Cell counts and flow-FISH telomere length measurements were performed on leukocytes and thymocytes of humans and other species. Leukocyte suspensions were prepared by two red blood cell lysis steps with ammonium chloride. Optimal denaturation of DNA was achieved by heating at 85-87 degrees C for 15 min in a solution containing 70%/75% formamide. Hybridization was performed at room temperature with a 0.3 microg/ml telomere-PNA probe for at least 60-90 min. Unbound telomere-PNA probe was diluted at least 4,000-40,000 times with wash steps containing 70%/75% formamide at room temperature. LDS 751 and DAPI were suitable as DNA counterstains as they did not show significant interference with telomere length measurement. CONCLUSIONS: The use of flow-FISH for telomere length measurements in nucleated blood cells requires tight adherence to an optimized protocol. The method described here can be used to determine rapidly the telomere length in subsets of nucleated blood cells.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations153
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCytometrySame topicTelomeres, Telomerase, and SenescenceFrench-language works237,207