Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25482523›Full record

ArticleCell adhesion & migration2014

Live-cell imaging.

Richard Cole

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cell adhesion & migration, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
8.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 119 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Using Computer Vision Libraries to Streamline Nuclei Quantification.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Richard Colea Wadsworth Center; New York State Department of Health ; Albany , NY USA.
Albany Research Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It would be hard to argue that live-cell imaging has not changed our view of biology. The past 10 years have seen an explosion of interest in imaging cellular processes, down to the molecular level. There are now many advanced techniques being applied to live cell imaging. However, cellular health is often under appreciated. For many researchers, if the cell at the end of the experiment has not gone into apoptosis or is blebbed beyond recognition, than all is well. This is simply incorrect. There are many factors that need to be considered when performing live-cell imaging in order to maintain cellular health such as: imaging modality, media, temperature, humidity, PH, osmolality, and photon dose. The wavelength of illuminating light, and the total photon dose that the cells are exposed to, comprise two of the most important and controllable parameters of live-cell imaging. The lowest photon dose that achieves a measureable metric for the experimental question should be used, not the dose that produces cover photo quality images. This is paramount to ensure that the cellular processes being investigated are in their in vitro state and not shifted to an alternate pathway due to environmental stress. The timing of the mitosis is an ideal canary in the gold mine, in that any stress induced from the imaging will result in the increased length of mitosis, thus providing a control model for the current imagining conditions.

Indexed as

Optical ImagingAnimalsCellsHumansenvironmental controlfluorescenceilluminationtime-lapsetoxicity

Identifiers

PMID25482523
PMCPMC4594455
OpenAlexW1889788822

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.