4.8 Article

Minimum information specification for in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry experiments (MISFISHIE)

期刊

NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 26, 期 3, 页码 305-312

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nbt1391

关键词

-

资金

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/E025080/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. Medical Research Council [MC_U127527203, MC_U117532048] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/E025080/1] Funding Source: Medline
  4. Medical Research Council [MC_U127527203, MC_U117532048] Funding Source: Medline
  5. NHLBI NIH HHS [R33 HL073712] Funding Source: Medline
  6. NIDDK NIH HHS [U01 DK063630, DK63630, U01 DK063483, DK63328, R01 DK063400, U01 DK063328, R01 DK079798, DK63483, DK63481, R01 DK079798-01A2, DK63400, U01 DK063481] Funding Source: Medline
  7. BBSRC [BB/E025080/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. MRC [MC_U117532048, MC_U127527203] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One purpose of the biomedical literature is to report results in sufficient detail that the methods of data collection and analysis can be independently replicated and verified. Here we present reporting guidelines for gene expression localization experiments: the minimum information specification for in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry experiments (MISFISHIE). MISFISHIE is modeled after the Minimum Information About a Microarray Experiment (MIAME) specification for microarray experiments. Both guidelines define what information should be reported without dictating a format for encoding that information. MISFISHIE describes six types of information to be provided for each experiment: experimental design, biomaterials and treatments, reporters, staining, imaging data and image characterizations. This specification has benefited the consortium within which it was developed and is expected to benefit the wider research community. We welcome feedback from the scientific community to help improve our proposal.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据