The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Plant Genome Size Estimation by Flow Cytometry: Inter-laboratory Comparison*1
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Estimation of nuclear DNA content in plants using flow cytometry
Doležel, J., Greilhuber, J., & Suda, J. (2007) · Nature Protocols · doi:10.1038/nprot.2007.310 · Cited by 1,639
Self-citationA physical, genetic and functional sequence assembly of the barley genome
The International Barley Genome Sequencing Consortium (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11543 · Cited by 1,456
Pellicer, J., Powell, R. F., & Leitch, I. J. (2021) · Methods in Molecular Biology · doi:10.1007/978-1-0716-0997-2_17 · Cited by 205
Loureiro, J., Rodriguez, E., Costa, A., & Santos, C. (2007) · Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution · doi:10.1007/s10722-006-9115-3 · Cited by 67
Bačovský, V., Novotná, P., Phillips, D., Horáková, L., Kružlicová, J., Čížková, J., Janoušek, B., & Čegan, R. (2026) · Plant Physiology · doi:10.1093/plphys/kiaf599
Metadata
- Authors
- DOLEEL, J.
- Venue
- Annals of Botany
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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.