Claim · model-written summary
Otto’s generally ranked among the best buffers and performed better with low-DNA-content species.
- Taxon
- plant speciese1
- Outcome
- better resultse0
- Qualifier
- species with low DNA contente0
- Comparator
- Otto's buffere0
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleTreatmentSettingDirectionValue
Verbatim
e0“LB01 and Otto's were generally the best buffers, with Otto's buffer providing better results in species with low DNA content.”
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 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 Combined forward and side scatter analysis produced a fingerprint for each buffer.
- Method / resource Variation across days exceeded variation across operators.
- Method / resource No buffer performed best across every species.