The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of three DNA fluorochromes for flow cytometric estimation of nuclear DNA content in plants
Abstract
Flow cytometric estimation of nuclear DNA content was performed in six plant species employing three fluorochromes showing different DNA base preferences: propidium iodide (no base preference), 4′,6‐diamidino‐2‐phenylindole (DAPI; AT preference), and mithramycin (GC preference). Nuclei isolated from human leukocytes were used as a primary reference standard. While nuclear DNA contents estimated using propidium iodide were in agreement with published data obtained using other techniques, the values obtained using fluorochromes showing base preference were significantly different. It was found that the differences were caused by the differences in overall AT/GC ratios, and by the species‐specific differences in binding of these fluorochromes to DNA. It was concluded that nuclear DNA content estimations performed with fluorochromes showing base preference should be interpreted with caution even when AT/GC ratios of the reference and the sample are equal. The use of intercalting dyes (e.g. propidium iodide) is recommended for this purpose. On the other hand, comparison of the staining behaviour of intercalating dyes with that of dyes showing base preference may give additional information on chromatin structural differences and arrangement of molecule pairs in DNA.
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
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
Yokoya, K. (2000) · Annals of Botany · doi:10.1006/anbo.1999.1102 · Cited by 186
Brito, G., Lopes, T., Loureiro, J., Rodriguez, E., & Santos, C. (2010) · Trees · doi:10.1007/s00468-010-0442-9 · Cited by 44
Aalifar, M., Arab, M., Aliniaeifard, S., Dianati, S., Zare Mehrjerdi, M., Limpens, E., & Serek, M. (2019) · Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture (PCTOC) · doi:10.1007/s11240-019-01684-6 · Cited by 21
Metadata
- Authors
- Dolezel, J., Sgorbati, S., & Lucretti, S.
- Venue
- Physiologia Plantarum
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1992-08
- Volume
- 85
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 625-631
- ISSN
- 0031-9317 (ISSN-L)
- 1399-3054
- OpenAlex
- W2089613739
- Cited by
- 646
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.82
- 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: Comparison of three DNA fluorochromes for flow cytometric estimation of nuclear DNA content in plants. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1034/j.1399-3054.1992.850410.x
- The paper
- Dolezel, J., Sgorbati, S., & Lucretti, S. (1992). Comparison of three DNA fluorochromes for flow cytometric estimation of nuclear DNA content in plants. Physiologia Plantarum. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1399-3054.1992.850410.x
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.