Evidence mapPaperPMID 41979651Full record

ReviewPathologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2026

[Half a century of gene expression analysis : The path to modern spatial transcriptomics in autopsy tissue].

Torben Redmer, Josefine Radke, Helena Radbruch

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Torben RedmerInstitut für Molecular Genomics, Universitätsmedizin Greifswald, Greifswald, Deutschland.
Josefine RadkeInstitut für Molecular Genomics, Universitätsmedizin Greifswald, Greifswald, Deutschland.
Helena RadbruchInstitut für Neuropathologie, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Deutschland. helena.radbruch@charite.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6941-3397

Funding

Bundesministerium für Forschung und Technologie 01KX2524
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past five decades, gene expression analysis has evolved from classical methods such as Northern blot and in situ hybridization to high-resolution sequencing techniques. For the first time, modern technologies, such as spatial transcriptomics, now allow the simultaneous analysis of histology and (sub-)cellular gene expression.The aim of this work is to present the methodological development of gene expression analysis and to evaluate current platforms such as Visium HD, GeoMx, CosMx, and Xenium in terms of resolution, applicability, and challenges when analyzing FFPE and postmortem tissue.Based on a literature review, classical and modern methods are compared, with a focus on cell type-specific and spatial expression patterns as well as RNA quality.While traditional approaches mainly provide quantitative information, currently available technologies enable high-resolution mapping of gene expression down to a single-cell or subcellular level. However, RNA quality proves to be a critical factor for the reliability of analyses, especially in FFPE and postmortem samples. Spatial transcriptomics provides unprecedented insights into cellular interactions and molecular pathomechanisms. For valid results, standardized sample preparation, RNA quality control, and close collaboration with a (neuro-)pathologist are essential.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingAutopsyHumansRNASpatial TranscriptomicsTissue FixationRNACell communicationIn situ hybridizationPathologyRNA sequence analysisSingle cell analysis

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.