Claim · model-written summary
Combined forward and side scatter analysis produced a fingerprint for each buffer.
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleTreatmentSettingDirectionValueQualifier
Verbatim
e0“A combined analysis of FS and SS provided a 'fingerprint' for each buffer.”
e1“seven plant species”
Title
Comparison of Four Nuclear Isolation Buffers for Plant DNA Flow Cytometry
JOÃO LOUREIRO; ELEAZAR RODRIGUEZ; JAROSLAV DOLEŽEL; et al. Annals of Botany 2006. doi:10.1093/aob/mcl141
Other claims from this paper (9)
- Method / resource The four buffers differed in performance.
- Method / resource Except for O. pes-caprae, any buffer gave acceptable results for all species.
- Method / resource LB01 generally ranked among the best buffers.
- Method / resource Otto’s generally ranked among the best buffers and performed better with low-DNA-content species.
- Method / resource Galbraith’s buffer produced satisfactory results.
- Method / resource Tris.MgCl2 was generally the worst buffer.
- Method / resource Tris.MgCl2 gave the best histograms for C. australis.
- Method / resource Variation across days exceeded variation across operators.
- Method / resource No buffer performed best across every species.