Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23853708›Full record

ArticleInterface focus2013

From seeing to believing: labelling strategies for in vivo cell-tracking experiments.

Fränze Progatzky, Margaret J Dallman, Cristina Lo Celso

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Interface focus, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 124 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
124citing 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

124 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Induced Treg-Derived Extracellular Vesicles Suppress CD4Journal of extracellular vesicles · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

64 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

3 authors.

Fränze ProgatzkyDepartment of Life Sciences , Imperial College London , London SW7 2AZ , UK.
Margaret J Dallman
Cristina Lo Celso

Funding

Cancer Research UK 11831
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intravital microscopy has become increasingly popular over the past few decades because it provides high-resolution and real-time information about complex biological processes. Technological advances that allow deeper penetration in live tissues, such as the development of confocal and two-photon microscopy, together with the generation of ever-new fluorophores that facilitate bright labelling of cells and tissue components have made imaging of vertebrate model organisms efficient and highly informative. Genetic manipulation leading to expression of fluorescent proteins is undoubtedly the labelling method of choice and has been used to visualize several cell types in vivo. This approach, however, can be technically challenging and time consuming. Over the years, several dyes have been developed to allow rapid, effective and bright ex vivo labelling of cells for subsequent transplantation and imaging. Here, we review and discuss the advantages and limitations of a number of strategies commonly used to label and track cells at high resolution in vivo in mouse and zebrafish, using fluorescence microscopy. While the quest for the perfect label is far from achieved, current reagents are valuable tools enabling the progress of biological discovery, so long as they are selected and used appropriately.

Indexed as

cancercell biologyfluorescence microscopyin vivo imagingstem cells

Identifiers

PMID23853708
PMCPMC3638420

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.