ArticleOncotarget2017
Saline is a more appropriate solution for microvesicles for flow cytometric analyses.
Article in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Extracellular Vesicles Linking Inflammation, Cancer and Thrombotic Risks.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2022Review
- Microvesicles in Cancer: Small Size, Large Potential.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microvesicles (MVs) are carriers of molecular and oncogenic signatures present in subsets of tumor cells and tumor-associated stroma, and a focus of cancer research. Although methods to detect MVs are mature, we were concerned that the buffer used could lead to false results when quantitating MVs by flow cytometry. In this work,we detected MVs by flow cytometry withthree different solutions: water, saline, and phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). The results demonstrated that PBS, when reacted with annexin V binding buffer, produced nano-sized vesicles even when there were no MVs in the sample. No similar events occurred in the saline and water groups (P < 0.01). Annexin V positive rate increased significantly when PBS was used as the buffer, compared to saline and water. These false negative results were also observed when we quantified some markers of MVs such as CD3 and CD19. A probable explanation for these findings is the production of insoluble Ca(H2PO4)2 or Ca3PO4 from calcium in the binding buffer and phosphate in PBS. Thus, considering the osmotic pressure of water, we suggest that saline is a more suitable buffer when counting MVs by flow cytometry.
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.