Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28179996›Full record

ArticleCell death discovery2017

A quantitative real-time approach for discriminating apoptosis and necrosis.

Asha Lekshmi, Shankara Narayanan Varadarajan, Santhik Subhasingh Lupitha, Deepa Indira, Krupa Ann Mathew, Aneesh Chandrasekharan Nair, Mydhily Nair, Tilak Prasad, Hari Sekar, Anurup Kochucherukkan Gopalakrishnan and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cell death discovery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Programmed cell death detection methods: a systematic review and a categorical comparison.Apoptosis : an international journal on programmed cell death · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Biocompatible Copolymerized Gold Nanoclusters: Anti-Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Asha LekshmiCancer Research Program-1, Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology , Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India.
Shankara Narayanan VaradarajanCancer Research Program-1, Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology , Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India.
Santhik Subhasingh LupithaCancer Research Program-1, Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology , Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India.
Deepa IndiraCancer Research Program-1, Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology , Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India.
Krupa Ann MathewCancer Research Program-1, Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology , Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India.
Aneesh Chandrasekharan NairCancer Research Program-1, Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology , Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India.
Mydhily NairCancer Research Program-1, Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology , Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India.
Tilak PrasadCancer Research Program-1, Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology , Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India.
Hari SekarCancer Research Program-1, Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology , Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India.
Anurup Kochucherukkan GopalakrishnanCancer Research Program-1, Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology , Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India.
Abitha MuraliCancer Research Program-1, Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology , Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India.
Thankayyan Retnabai SanthoshkumarCancer Research Program-1, Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology , Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India.
Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Apoptosis and necrosis are the two major forms of cell death mechanisms. Both forms of cell death are involved in several physiological and pathological conditions and also in the elimination of cancer cells following successful chemotherapy. Large number of cellular and biochemical assays have evolved to determine apoptosis or necrosis for qualitative and quantitative purposes. A closer analysis of the assays and their performance reveal the difficulty in using any of these methods as a confirmatory approach, owing to the secondary induction of necrosis in apoptotic cells. This highlights the essential requirement of an approach with a real-time analysis capability for discriminating the two forms of cell death. This paper describes a sensitive live cell-based method for distinguishing apoptosis and necrosis at single-cell level. The method uses cancer cells stably expressing genetically encoded FRET-based active caspase detection probe and DsRed fluorescent protein targeted to mitochondria. Caspase activation is visualized by loss of FRET upon cleavage of the FRET probe, while retention of mitochondrial fluorescence and loss of FRET probe before its cleavage confirms necrosis. The absence of cleavage as well as the retention of mitochondrial fluorescence indicates live cells. The method described here forms an extremely sensitive tool to visualize and quantify apoptosis and necrosis, which is adaptable for diverse microscopic, flow cytometric techniques and high-throughput imaging platforms with potential application in diverse areas of cell biology and oncology drug screening.

Identifiers

PMID28179996
PMCPMC5253725
OpenAlexW2581592015

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.