Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Interrelationship between methodological choices and conceptual models in solid tumor cytogenetics

N Pandis1, G Bardi, S Heim

  • 1Department of Medical Genetics, Odense University, Denmark.

Cancer Genetics and Cytogenetics
|September 1, 1994
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Third molar agenesis: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Archives of oral biology·2026
Same author

Reporting of Animal Studies on Craniofacial Bone Repair: 2004, 2014, and 2024.

Journal of dental research·2026
Same author

Statistical Heterogeneity in Oral Health Meta-Analyses.

Journal of dental research·2025
Same author

Association of Gingival Thickness With Incisor Morphological Characteristics and Papilla Height: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.]·2025
Same author

The effect of orthodontic treatment on smile attractiveness: a systematic review.

Progress in orthodontics·2023
Same author

Early Optimistic Effect in Periodontology and Implant Dentistry Trials.

Journal of dental research·2021
Same journal

Letter to the editor regarding the article "Chromosome abnormalities additional to the Philadelphia chromosome at the diagnosis of chronic myelogenous leukemia: pathogenic and prognostic implications".

Cancer genetics and cytogenetics·2010
Same journal

A novel t(10;12)(q21;p13) involving ETV6 in a patient with acute myeloid leukemia.

Cancer genetics and cytogenetics·2010
Same journal

A case of acute myeloid leukemia initially treated as chronic lymphocytic leukemia: what do we know about t(4;12)(q12;p13)?

Cancer genetics and cytogenetics·2010
Same journal

Myelodysplastic syndrome with isochromosome 5p and trisomy 8 after treatment of a multiple myeloma.

Cancer genetics and cytogenetics·2010
Same journal

Chromosomal imbalances in urinary bladder paraganglioma.

Cancer genetics and cytogenetics·2010
Same journal

A pericentric inv(9)(p22q34) of the der(9)t(9;22)(q34;q11.2) is a recurrent secondary anomaly in Ph-positive leukemia.

Cancer genetics and cytogenetics·2010
See all related articles

Scientific methods and models are interdependent, influencing research outcomes. Inherited approaches in solid tumor cytogenetics may bias findings, necessitating careful method selection and interpretation for accurate results.

Area of Science:

  • Cytogenetics
  • Oncology
  • Molecular Biology

Background:

  • Scientific methods and models are interdependent, with a priori expectations potentially influencing technique selection.
  • Conceptual models and methods in solid tumor cytogenetics are largely inherited from leukemia and lymphoma cytogenetics.
  • This inheritance can bias the generation and interpretation of new findings, particularly in carcinomas.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To illustrate how inherited cytogenetic methods can bias findings in solid tumor research.
  • To highlight the susceptibility of carcinoma cytogenetics to selection differences.
  • To advocate for improved methods in characterizing karyotyped cells.

Main Methods:

  • Review and analysis of established cytogenetic methodologies in solid tumors.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Comparison of cytogenetic approaches used for hematologic/mesenchymal neoplasms versus carcinomas.
  • Discussion of potential biases introduced by sample processing, cell culture, and analysis.

    • Main Results:

    • Carcinomas frequently harbor cytogenetically unrelated clones, unlike hematologic or mesenchymal neoplasms.
    • Carcinoma cytogenetics results are highly dependent on sample processing, disaggregation, culture conditions, and analysis.
    • Current methods limit the ability to quality-grade clonal chromosome changes and determine their contribution to the neoplastic process.

    Conclusions:

    • Inherited cytogenetic models may introduce bias in solid tumor research, especially for carcinomas.
    • The complexity of carcinoma karyotypes can be underestimated due to selection biases in analysis.
    • Further efforts are needed to establish the phenotypic nature of karyotyped cells and improve the reliability of cytogenetic interpretations in solid tumors.