Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30561900›Full record

ReviewWiley interdisciplinary reviews. Developmental biology2019

Generating and working with Drosophila cell cultures: Current challenges and opportunities.

Arthur Luhur, Kristin M Klueg, Andrew C Zelhof

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Developmental biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. RNA Interference (RNAi) Screening in Cultured Drosophila Cells.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2021
    Article
  14. AdaptingG3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Thawing, Culturing, and Cryopreserving Drosophila Cell Lines.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2019
    Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Arthur LuhurDepartment of Biology, Drosophila Genomics Resource Center, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, Indiana.
Kristin M KluegDepartment of Biology, Drosophila Genomics Resource Center, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, Indiana.
Andrew C ZelhofDepartment of Biology, Drosophila Genomics Resource Center, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, Indiana.

Funding

DROSOPHILA GENOMICS RESOURCE CENTERP40OD010949 · OD · TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY · PI Andrew Zelhof · 2012 to 2026
$9.4M
NIH HHS P40 OD010949NIH HHS P40OD010949
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of Drosophila cell cultures has positively impacted both fundamental and biomedical research. The most widely used cell lines: Schneider, Kc, the CNS and imaginal disc lines continue to be the choice for many applications. Drosophila cell lines provide a homogenous source of cells suitable for biochemical experimentations, transcriptomics, functional genomics, and biomedical applications. They are amenable to RNA interference and serve as a platform for high-throughput screens to identify relevant candidate genes or drugs for any biological process. Currently, CRISPR-based functional genomics are also being developed for Drosophila cell lines. Even though many uniquely derived cell lines exist, cell genetic techniques such the transgenic UAS-GAL4-based Ras

Indexed as

Gene EditingGene Expression RegulationAnimalsCell Culture TechniquesCRISPR-Cas SystemsDrosophilaDrosophila ProteinsPhenotypeDrosophila Proteinsauthenticationcell cultureCRISPRDrosophilaRNA interference

Identifiers

PMID30561900
PMCPMC6450750

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.