ArticleAnalytical chemistry2012
Microfabricated arrays for splitting and assay of clonal colonies.
Article in Analytical chemistry, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A technology of a different sort: microraft arrays.Lab on a chip · 2021Review
- Highly efficient cellular cloning using Ferro-core Micropallet Arrays.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Large area magnetic micropallet arrays for cell colony sorting.Lab on a chip · 2016Article
- Individually addressable arrays of replica microbial cultures enabled by splitting SlipChips.Integrative biology : quantitative biosciences from nano to macro · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
A microfabricated platform was developed for highly parallel and efficient colony picking, splitting, and clone identification. A pallet array provided patterned cell colonies which mated to a second printing array composed of bridging microstructures formed by a supporting base and attached post. The posts enabled mammalian cells from colonies initially cultured on the pallet array to migrate to corresponding sites on the printing array. Separation of the arrays simultaneously split the colonies, creating a patterned replica. Optimization of array elements provided transfer efficiencies greater than 90% using bridging posts of 30 μm diameter and 100 μm length and total colony numbers of 3000. Studies using five mammalian cell lines demonstrated that a variety of adherent cell types could be cultured and effectively split with printing efficiencies of 78-92%. To demonstrate the technique's utility, clonal cell lines with siRNA knockdown of Coronin 1B were generated using the arrays and compared to a traditional FACS/Western Blotting-based approach. Identification of target clones required a destructive assay to identify cells with an absence of Coronin 1B brought about by the successful infection of interfering shRNA construct. By virtue of miniaturization and its parallel format, the platform enabled the identification and generation of 12 target clones from a starting sample of only 3900 cells and required only 5 man hours over 11 days. In contrast, the traditional method required 500,000 cells and generated only 5 target clones with 34 man hours expended over 47 days. These data support the considerable reduction in time, manpower, and reagents using the miniaturized platform for clonal selection by destructive assay versus conventional approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.