1995
DOI: 10.1136/vr.137.1.24
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

AgNOR count as a marker in ethmoid carcinoma in bovids

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

2
1
0

Year Published

2001
2001
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
2
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In the present study, AgNORs appeared as round to irregular, dark brown to black dots of varying sizes in the nuclei which was in accordance with the observations of Chandrasekhar and Lalitha (1995). Malignant tumors had numerous, smaller and irregular AgNORs, dispersed throughout the nucleus whereas benign tumors had large, round, sharply defined and few AgNOR dots confined to the nucleoli.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…In the present study, AgNORs appeared as round to irregular, dark brown to black dots of varying sizes in the nuclei which was in accordance with the observations of Chandrasekhar and Lalitha (1995). Malignant tumors had numerous, smaller and irregular AgNORs, dispersed throughout the nucleus whereas benign tumors had large, round, sharply defined and few AgNOR dots confined to the nucleoli.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…In the present study, AgNORs appeared as round to irregular, dark brown to black dots of varying sizes in the nuclei which was in accordance with the observations of Chandrasekhar and Lalitha [23]. Malignant tumors had numerous, smaller and irregular AgNORs, dispersed throughout the nucleus whereas benign tumors had large, round, sharply defined and few AgNOR dots confined to the nucleoli.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 80%
“…These findings agree with those of Mosunic (2003) et al, 2014). Benign tumours usually showed few, large, round and sharply defined AgNOR dots while malignant tumours had small, irregular AgNOR dots/foci (Chandrasekar and Lalitha, 1995).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%