ArticleScientific reports2016
HandKAchip - Hands-free killing assay on a chip.
Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Difference in Intestine Content ofMicromachines · 2023Article
- High-resolution imaging and analysis of the intestinal bacterial load ofRSC advances · 2023Article
- An In Vivo Microfluidic Study of Bacterial Load Dynamics and Absorption in theMicromachines · 2021Article
- Microfluidic approaches forAnimal cells and systems · 2020Review
- Disentangling bacterial invasiveness from lethality in an experimental host-pathogen system.Molecular systems biology · 2019Article
- A Microfluidic Platform for Longitudinal Imaging in Caenorhabditis elegans.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Small animals such as the roundworm C. elegans are excellent models for studying bacterial infection and host response, as well as for genetic and chemical screens. A key methodology is the killing assay, in which the number of surviving animals is tracked as a function of the time post infection. This is a labor-intensive procedure, prone to human error and subjective choices, and often involves undesired perturbation to the animals and their environment. In addition, the survival of animals is just one aspect of a multi-dimensional complex biological process. Here we report a microfluidic-based approach for performing killing assays in worms, compatible with standard assays performed on solid media. In addition to providing accurate and reproducible survival curves at a considerably reduced labor, this approach allows acquisition of a multitude of quantitative data with minimal undesired perturbations. These measurements are obtained automatically at a worm-by-worm resolution using a custom image processing workflow. The proposed approach is simple, scalable, and extendable, and is significantly more economical than standard manual protocols.
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.