Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 293

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quantitative analysis of comparative genomic hybridization

du Manoir, Stanislas, Schröck, Evelin, Bentz, Martin, Speicher, Michael R., Joos, Stefan, Ried, Thomas, Lichter, Peter, Cremer, Thomas·1995·Cytometry

Abstract

Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) is a new molecular cytogenetic method for the detection of chromosomal imbalances. Following cohybridization of DNA prepared from a sample to be studied and control DNA to normal metaphase spreads, probes are detected via different fluorochromes. The ratio of the test and control fluorescence intensities along a chromosome reflects the relative copy number of segments of a chromosome in the test genome. Quantitative evaluation of CGH experiments is required for the determination of low copy changes, e.g., monosomy or trisomy, and for the definition of the breakpoints involved in unbalanced rearrangements. In this study, a program for quantitation of CGH preparations is presented. This program is based on the extraction of the fluorescence ratio profile along each chromosome, followed by averaging of individual profiles from several meta phase spreads. Objective parameters critical for quantitative evaluations were tested, and the criteria for selection of suitable CGH preparations are described. The granularity of the chromosome painting and the regional inhomogeneity of fluorescence intensities in metaphase spreads proved to be crucial parameters. The coefficient of variation of the ratio value for chromosomes in balanced state (CVBS) provides a general quality criterion for CGH experiments. Different cutoff levels (thresholds) of average fluorescence ratio values were compared for their specificity and sensitivity with regard to the detection of chromosomal imbalances. © 1995 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.990190105

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 17 references

Cited by

See all 293

Metadata

Authors
du Manoir, S., Schröck, E., Bentz, M., Speicher, M. R., Joos, S., Ried, T., Lichter, P., & Cremer, T.
Venue
Cytometry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1995-01
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
27-41
ISSN
  • 0196-4763 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0320
OpenAlex
W2127301911
Cited by
293
References
17
FWCI
17.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Quantitative analysis of comparative genomic hybridization. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cyto.990190105
The paper
du Manoir, S., Schröck, E., Bentz, M., Speicher, M. R., Joos, S., Ried, T., Lichter, P., & Cremer, T. (1995). Quantitative analysis of comparative genomic hybridization. Cytometry. https://doi.org/10.1002/cyto.990190105

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.