Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28501636›Full record

ArticleJournal of theoretical biology2017

Determining whether observed eukaryotic cell migration indicates chemotactic responsiveness or random chemokinetic motion.

A C Szatmary, R Nossal

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of theoretical biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

A C SzatmaryEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health, and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA; Department of Mechanical Engineering, Bucknell University, 1 Dent Drive, Lewisburg, PA 17837, USA. Electronic address: alex.szatmary@bucknell.edu.
R NossalEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health, and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA. Electronic address: nossalr@mail.nih.gov.
National Institutes of Health · US

Funding

Biophysical Methods and ModelsZIAHD000260 · NICHD · EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT · PI NOSSAL, RALPH · 2009 to 2015
$2.1M
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA HD000260
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chemotaxis, the motion of cells directed by a gradient of chemoattractant molecules, guides cells in immune response, development, wound healing, and cancer. Unfortunately, this process is difficult to distinguish from chemokinesis, i.e., stimulated random cell motion. Chemotaxis is frequently inferred by determining how many cells cross a boundary in a chemotaxis assay, for example how many cells crawl into a chemoattractant-infused filter, or how many cells enter a defined region in an under-agarose assay or agarose spot assay. To mitigate possible ambiguity in whether motion observed in these assays is directed by the chemoattractant gradient or by chemokinesis, we developed a mathematical model to determine when such methods indeed indicate directed motion of cells. In contrast to previous analyses of chemotaxis assays, we report not just the gradients that arise in the assays but also resulting cell motion. We applied the model to data obtained from rigorous measurements and show, as examples, that MDA-MB-231 breast-cancer cells are at least 20 times less sensitive to gradients of EGF or CXCL12 than neutrophils are to formyl peptides; we then used this information to determine the extent to which gradient sensing increases the rate of boundary crossing relative to a random-motility control. Results show, for example, that in the filter assay, 2-4 times as many neutrophils pass through the filter when exposed to a gradient as when the gradient is absent. However, in the other combinations of cells and assays we considered, only 10-20% more cells are counted as having migrated in a directed, rather than random, motility condition. We also discuss the design of appropriate controls for these assays, which is difficult for the under-agarose and agarose spot assays. Moreover, although straightforward to perform with the filter assay, reliable controls are often not done. Consequently, we infer that chemotaxis is frequently over-reported, especially for cells like MDA-MB-231 cells, which move slowly and are relatively insensitive to gradients. Such results provide insights into the use of chemotaxis assays, particularly if one wants to acquire and analyze quantitative data.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalBreast NeoplasmsCell MovementChemokine CXCL12Chemotactic FactorsChemotaxisChemotaxis, LeukocyteEpidermal Growth FactorEukaryotic CellsFemaleHumansNeutrophilsSepharoseChemokine CXCL12Chemotactic FactorsEpidermal Growth FactorSepharoseChemotaxisMigrationModel

Identifiers

PMID28501636
PMCPMC5546118
OpenAlexW2614043374

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.