Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 176

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

TU-tagging: cell type–specific RNA isolation from intact complex tissues

Open access
Miller, Michael R, Robinson, Kristin J, Cleary, Michael D, Doe, Chris Q·2009·Nature Methods

Abstract

We found that the combination of spatially restricted uracil phosphoribosyltransferase (UPRT) expression with 4-thiouracil delivery can be used to label and purify cell type–specific RNA from intact complex tissues in Drosophila melanogaster. This method is useful for isolating RNA from cell types that are difficult to isolate by dissection or dissociation methods and should work in many organisms, including mammals and other vertebrates.

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 · 10.1038/nmeth.1329

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Miller, M. R., Robinson, K. J., Cleary, M. D., & Doe, C. Q.
Venue
Nature Methods
Published
2009-05-10
Volume
6
Issue
6
Pages
439-441
ISSN
  • 1548-7091 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-7105
OpenAlex
W2073644539
Cited by
176
References
4
FWCI
3.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

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.