Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24224157›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2013

Direct cell lysis for single-cell gene expression profiling.

David Svec, Daniel Andersson, Milos Pekny, Robert Sjöback, Mikael Kubista, Anders Ståhlberg

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Injectable Piezoelectric Hydrogel for Vital Pulp Therapy.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

David SvecInstitute of Biotechnology AS CR , Prague , Czech Republic ; TATAA Biocenter , Gothenburg , Sweden.
Daniel Andersson
Milos Pekny
Robert Sjöback
Mikael Kubista
Anders Ståhlberg
Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Biotechnology · CZTataa Biocenter (Sweden) · SEUniversity of Gothenburg · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The interest to analyze single and few cell samples is rapidly increasing. Numerous extraction protocols to purify nucleic acids are available, but most of them compromise severely on yield to remove contaminants and are therefore not suitable for the analysis of samples containing small numbers of transcripts only. Here, we evaluate 17 direct cell lysis protocols for transcript yield and compatibility with downstream reverse transcription quantitative real-time PCR. Four endogenously expressed genes are assayed together with RNA and DNA spikes in the samples. We found bovine serum albumin (BSA) to be the best lysis agent, resulting in efficient cell lysis, high RNA stability, and enhanced reverse transcription efficiency. Furthermore, we found direct cell lysis with BSA superior to standard column based extraction methods, when analyzing from 1 up to 512 mammalian cells. In conclusion, direct cell lysis protocols based on BSA can be applied with most cell collection methods and are compatible with most analytical workflows to analyze single-cells as well as samples composed of small numbers of cells.

Indexed as

cell lysisdirect lysisDNA spikereal-time PCRRNA purificationRNA spikesingle-cell biologysingle-cell gene expression

Identifiers

PMID24224157
PMCPMC3819639
OpenAlexW2114016363

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.