Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28408395›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2017

High-throughput, low-loss, low-cost, and label-free cell separation using electrophysiology-activated cell enrichment.

Shabnam A Faraghat, Kai F Hoettges, Max K Steinbach, Daan R van der Veen, William J Brackenbury, Erin A Henslee, Fatima H Labeed, Michael P Hughes

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
6.3field-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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 107 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Separation of Heterotrophic MicroalgaeFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Microfluidics-Based Single-Cell Research for Intercellular Interaction.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2021
    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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Shabnam A FaraghatCentre for Biomedical Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, United Kingdom.
Kai F HoettgesCentre for Biomedical Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, United Kingdom.
Max K SteinbachCentre for Biomedical Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, United Kingdom.
Daan R van der VeenSchool of Biosciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, United Kingdom.
William J BrackenburyDepartment of Biology, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6882-3351
Erin A HensleeCentre for Biomedical Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, United Kingdom.
Fatima H LabeedCentre for Biomedical Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, United Kingdom.
Michael P HughesCentre for Biomedical Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, United Kingdom; m.hughes@surrey.ac.uk.
University of Surrey · GBUniversity of York · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Currently, cell separation occurs almost exclusively by density gradient methods and by fluorescence- and magnetic-activated cell sorting (FACS/MACS). These variously suffer from lack of specificity, high cell loss, use of labels, and high capital/operating cost. We present a dielectrophoresis (DEP)-based cell-separation method, using 3D electrodes on a low-cost disposable chip; one cell type is allowed to pass through the chip whereas the other is retained and subsequently recovered. The method advances usability and throughput of DEP separation by orders of magnitude in throughput, efficiency, purity, recovery (cells arriving in the correct output fraction), cell losses (those which are unaccounted for at the end of the separation), and cost. The system was evaluated using three example separations: live and dead yeast; human cancer cells/red blood cells; and rodent fibroblasts/red blood cells. A single-pass protocol can enrich cells with cell recovery of up to 91.3% at over 300,000 cells per second with >3% cell loss. A two-pass protocol can process 300,000,000 cells in under 30 min, with cell recovery of up to 96.4% and cell losses below 5%, an effective processing rate >160,000 cells per second. A three-step protocol is shown to be effective for removal of 99.1% of RBCs spiked with 1% cancer cells while maintaining a processing rate of ∼170,000 cells per second. Furthermore, the self-contained and low-cost nature of the separator device means that it has potential application in low-contamination applications such as cell therapies, where good manufacturing practice compatibility is of paramount importance.

Indexed as

Electrophysiological PhenomenaCell Line, TumorCell SeparationElectrophoresisErythrocytesHumansNeoplasmsSaccharomyces cerevisiaeDEPdielectrophoresisFACSlab on a chipMACS

Identifiers

PMID28408395
PMCPMC5422786
OpenAlexW2606097883

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.