ArticlePloS one2013
Atomic force microscopy analysis of progenitor corneal epithelial cells fractionated by a rapid centrifugation isolation technique.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the use of atomic force microscopy (AFM) to image the three groups of corneal epithelial cells fractionated by a novel rapid centrifugation isolation technique.
methodsEpithelial cells harvested from primary cultures of rabbit limbal rings were centrifuged onto uncoated dishes, first at 1400 rpm and then at 1800 rpm. The adherent cells after centrifugation at 1400 rpm (ATC1), the adherent cells at 1800 rpm (ATC2) and the non-adherent cells at 1800 rpm (NAC) were investigated for BrdU retention and were subjected to contact mode AFM and Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM).
resultsCompared with unfractionated cells, the ATC1 group, accounting for about 10% of the whole population, was enriched in BrdU label-retaining cells. There were dramatic overall shape, surface membrane and intra-cellular ultrastructure differences noted among ATC1, ATC2 and NAC populations. The whole cell roughness measurements were 21.1±1.5 nm, 79.5±3.4 nm and 103±4.6 nm for the ATC1, ATC2 and NAC groups, respectively. The mero-nucleus roughness measurements were 34.2±1.7 nm, 13.0±0.8 nm and 8.5±0.5 nm in the ATC1, ATC2 and NAC populations, respectively.
conclusionsAFM was found to be a good tool for distinguishing among the three groups of cells. BrdU label retention, the AFM parameters and TEM together suggest that the ATC1, ATC2 and NAC populations may be progenitor corneal epithelial cells, transit amplifying cells and terminal differentiation cells, respectively.
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.