Talk:Fluorescence in situ hybridization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Just a comment on the picture showing DNA structure at multiscale. The helix structure showed here is a left helix were the B-DNA structure is a right helix.

Ha, you are right, good eye! Looks like our friends at the NIH need your skills :) [1] - cohesion 01:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


This article could be augmented by some good pictures of various FISH techniques and schematics of the techniques. neffk 19:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


I would call this term "Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)" Instead of "Fluorescent in situ hybridization" —Preceding unsigned comment added by E.osimo (talkcontribs) 14:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Second. This is clearly named incorrectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colmdonovan (talkcontribs) 02:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Lab-on-a-chip and FISH[edit]

This section make it seem as though the lab-on-a-chip FISH method has no drawbacks. This is certainly not the case. I am not enough of an expert to be comfortable making these changes myself, but I have flagged the section for NPOV until drawbacks are discussed. Not that the technology is not a step forward, however without any mention of drawbacks the reader would otherwise get an overly positive and unbalanced read. --C4 Diesel (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

im with you on this. smells as if its been written with a specific agenda in mind. Reading up, will return to complete the section properly

S —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments. It appers to me the author(s) of this section (lab-on-a-chip FISH) have something to sell rather than a scientific discription. Was the photo of the chip contributed by the author(s) of this section? Sounds "fishy". What about the high costs of making these chips. From a manufacturing standpoint, the fact that these lab-on-a-chips are fabricated from glass suggests costs that run into hundreds of dollars for a single test.

I agree with all of the above comments. My recommendation is that all of the "lab on a chip" section should belong on it's own page, not on the FISH page. The FISH page should contain links to all the other related techniques including brightfield ISH, RNA ISH, Lab on a chip, etc.

Siavash ghaffari (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Why is this section still here? We all agree this is advertisment placement, and it has nothing to do with the general overview with FISH. I see this discussion has been going on for over almost a year and nothing has been done. This section should be removed!

I removed the section and replaced it with a two sentence description and new references. Mllyjn (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Your reaction is quite excessive. I'm no specialist, but I've heard about FISH being performed in plastic chips (which are cheap, but well, glass chip are expensive but can be re-used), and I don't really see your point. Being able to perform FISH in microfluidic platform is indeed interesting since it open up new targets, like CTCs for instance. If you're not satisfied with the single reference "ad", just delete it, or add some others references. You don't have to delete every line about new improvements of the technique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


I remember hearing about STAR-FISH (Substrate-tracking autoradiography-fluorescent in situ hybridization) but can't remember anything about it. Do you reckon that ought to be mentioned here? Abergabe (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)