Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26847277›Full record

ReviewYonsei medical journal2016

A Simple, Reproducible, Inexpensive, Yet Old-Fashioned Method for Determining Phagocytic and Bactericidal Activities of Macrophages.

Masakazu Kaneko, Yoshiko Emoto, Masashi Emoto

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Yonsei medical journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Bacterial Survival inBio-protocol · 2017
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Impact of Gentamicin Concentration and Exposure Time on IntracellularFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2017
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
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.

Masakazu KanekoLaboratory of Immunology, Department of Laboratory Sciences, Gunma University Graduate School of Health Sciences, Maebashi, Japan.
Yoshiko EmotoLaboratory of Immunology, Department of Laboratory Sciences, Gunma University Graduate School of Health Sciences, Maebashi, Japan.
Masashi EmotoLaboratory of Immunology, Department of Laboratory Sciences, Gunma University Graduate School of Health Sciences, Maebashi, Japan. masashi.emoto@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Macrophages (Mφ) play a pivotal role in the protection system by recognizing and eliminating invading pathogenic bacteria. Phagocytosis and the killing of invading bacteria are major effector functions of Mφ. Although the phagocytic and bactericidal activities of Mφ have been analyzed via several methods using a light microscope, a fluorescence microscope, or a fluorescence-activated cell sorter, expensive materials and equipment are usually required, and the methods are rather complicated. Moreover, it is impossible to determine both the phagocytic and bactericidal activities of Mφ simultaneously using these methods. In this review, we describe a simple, reproducible, inexpensive, yet old-fashioned method (antibiotic protection assay) for determining the phagocytic and bactericidal activities of Mφ.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsGentamicinsMacrophagesPhagocytosisAnti-Bacterial AgentsGentamicinsAnti-bacterial agentgentamicinmacrophagephagocytosis

Identifiers

PMID26847277
PMCPMC4740517

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.