Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23505616›Full record

ArticleCurrent opinion in chemical engineering2013

Stem Cell Separation Technologies.

Beili Zhu, Shashi K Murthy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current opinion in chemical engineering, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Microfluidic pumps for cell sorting.Biomicrofluidics · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Ultrahigh-throughput magnetic sorting of large blood volumes for epitope-agnostic isolation of circulating tumor cells.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020
    Article
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Beili ZhuDepartment of Chemical Engineering and Barnett Institute of Chemical and Biological Analysis, Northeastern University, Boston, MA.
Shashi K Murthy
Northeastern University · US

Funding

Microfluidic Cell Separation for Tissue Engineering and Regenerative MedicineR01EB009327 · NIBIB · NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY · PI MURTHY, SHASHI · 2010 to 2012
$1.8M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB009327
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stem cell therapy and translational stem cell research require large-scale supply of stem cells at high purity and viability, thus leading to the development of stem cell separation technologies. This review covers key technologies being applied to stem cell separation, and also highlights exciting new approaches in this field. First, we will cover conventional separation methods that are commercially available and have been widely adapted. These methods include Fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS), Magnet-activated cell sorting (MACS), pre-plating, conditioned expansion media, density gradient centrifugation, field flow fractionation (FFF), and dielectrophoresis (DEP). Next, we will introduce emerging novel methods that are currently under development. These methods include improved aqueous two-phase system, systematic evolution of ligands by exponential enrichment (SELEX), and various types of microfluidic platforms. Finally, we will discuss the challenges and directions towards future breakthroughs for stem cell isolation. Advancing stem cell separation techniques will be essential for clinical and research applications of stem cells.

Identifiers

PMID23505616
PMCPMC3596831
OpenAlexW2068881657

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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 OpenQuestion graph.