Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23508237›Full record

ArticleCell journal2012

Prevention and detection of Mycoplasma contamination in cell culture.

Laleh Nikfarjam, Parvaneh Farzaneh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cell journal, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 70 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

70 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Cultivated meat microbiological safety considerations and practices.Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety · 2025
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Laleh NikfarjamHuman and Animal Cell Bank, Iranian Biological Resource Center, ACECR, Tehran, Iran.
Parvaneh Farzaneh

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the main problems in cell culture is mycoplasma infection. It can extensively affect cell physiology and metabolism. As the applications of cell culture increase in research, industrial production and cell therapy, more concerns about mycoplasma contamination and detection will arise. This review will provide valuable information about: 1. the ways in which cells are contaminated and the frequency and source of mycoplasma species in cell culture; 2. the ways to prevent mycoplasma contamination in cell culture; 3. the importance of mycoplasma tests in cell culture; 4. different methods to identify mycoplasma contamination; 5. the consequences of mycoplasma contamination in cell culture and 6. available methods to eliminate mycoplasma contamination. Awareness about the sources of mycoplasma and pursuing aseptic techniques in cell culture along with reliable detection methods of mycoplasma contamination can provide an appropriate situation to prevent mycoplasma contamination in cell culture.

Indexed as

Cell CultureEliminationMycoplasmaPrevention

Identifiers

PMID23508237
PMCPMC3584481

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.