Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 523

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Plant Genome Size Estimation by Flow Cytometry: Inter-laboratory Comparison*1

DOLEEL, J·1998·Annals of Botany

Abstract

Flow cytometry is a convenient and rapid method that has been used extensively for estimation of nuclear genome size in plants. In contrast to general expectations, results obtained in different laboratories showed some striking discrepancies. The aim of this joint experiment was to test the reliability and reproducibility of methods. Care was taken to avoid a bias due to the quantity of DNA in the nucleus, the procedure for nuclei isolation or the type of instrument. Nuclear DNA content was estimated in nine plant species representing a typical range of genome size (2C=approx. 0.3–30 pg DNA). Each of the four laboratories involved in this study used a different buffer and/or procedure for nuclei isolation. Two laboratories used arc lamp-based instruments while the other two used laser-based instruments. The results obtained after nuclei staining with propidium iodide (a DNA intercalator) agreed well with those obtained using Feulgen densitometry. On the other hand, results obtained after staining with DAPI (binding preferentially to AT-rich regions) did not agree with those obtained using Feulgen densitometry. Small, but statistically significant, differences were found between data obtained with individual instruments. Differences between the same type of instruments were negligible, while larger differences were observed between lamp- and laser-based instruments. Ratios of fluorescence intensity obtained by laser instruments were higher than those obtained by lamp-based cytometers or by Feulgen densitometry. The results obtained in this study demonstrate that flow cytometry with DNA intercalators is a reliable method for estimation of nuclear genome size in plants. However, the study confirmed an urgent need for an agreement on standards. Given the small but systematic differences between different types of flow cytometers, analysis of very small differences in genome size should be made in the same laboratory and using the same instrument.

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 · 10.1006/anbo.1998.0730

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 523

Metadata

Authors
DOLEEL, J.
Venue
Annals of Botany
Published
1998-12
Volume
82
Pages
17-26
ISSN
0305-7364 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2091973256
Cited by
523
References
0
FWCI
11.54
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: Plant Genome Size Estimation by Flow Cytometry: Inter-laboratory Comparison*1. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1006/anbo.1998.0730
The paper
DOLEEL, J. (1998). Plant Genome Size Estimation by Flow Cytometry: Inter-laboratory Comparison*1. Annals of Botany. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.1998.0730

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.