Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 183

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Doublet discrimination in DNA cell‐cycle analysis

Open access
Wersto, Robert P., Chrest, Francis J., Leary, James F., Morris, Christa, Stetler‐Stevenson, MaryAlice, Gabrielson, Edward·2001·Cytometry

Abstract

Differences in doublet analysis have the potential to alter DNA cell‐cycle measurements. The techniques for doublet determination are often used interchangeably without regard for the complexity in cell shapes and sizes of biological specimens. G 0/1 doublets were identified and quantitated using fluorescence height versus area and fluorescence width versus area pulse measurements, by enumerating the proportion of G 2 + M cells that lack cyclin B1 immunoreactivity, and modeled in the DNA histograms by software algorithms. These techniques were tested on propidium iodide‐stained whole epithelial cells or nuclei from asynchronous cultures, or after exposure to chemotherapeutic agents that induced cell‐cycle arrest and were extended to human breast tumor specimens having DNA diploid patterns. G 0/1 doublets were easily discernible from G 2 + M singlets in cells or nuclei that are generally homogenous and spherical in shape. Doublet discrimination based on pulse processing or cyclin B1 measurements was nonconcordant in some nonspherical cell types and in cells following cell cycle arrest. Significant differences in G 0/1 doublet estimates were observed in breast tumor specimens (n = 50), with estimates based on pulse width twice those of pulse height and nearly five times greater than computer estimates. Differences between techniques are attributed to difficulties in the separation of the boundaries between G 0/1 doublets and G 2 + M singlet populations in biologically heterogeneous specimens. To improve reproducibility and enhance standardization among laboratories performing cell cycle analysis in experimental cell systems and in human breast tumors, doublet discrimination analysis should best be accomplished by computer modeling. Shape and size heterogeneity of tumor and arrested cells using pulse‐processing can lead to errors and make interlaboratory comparison difficult. Cytometry (Comm. Clin. Cytometry) 46:296–306, 2001. Published 2001 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cyto.1171

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 183

Metadata

Authors
Wersto, R. P., Chrest, F. J., Leary, J. F., Morris, C., Stetler‐Stevenson, M., & Gabrielson, E.
Venue
Cytometry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-10-15
Volume
46
Issue
5
Pages
296-306
ISSN
  • 0196-4763 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0320
OpenAlex
W2012025542
Cited by
183
References
0
FWCI
2.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Doublet discrimination in DNA cell‐cycle analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cyto.1171
The paper
Wersto, R. P., Chrest, F. J., Leary, J. F., Morris, C., Stetler‐Stevenson, M., & Gabrielson, E. (2001). Doublet discrimination in DNA cell‐cycle analysis. Cytometry. https://doi.org/10.1002/cyto.1171

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.