Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29055897›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical pathology2018

T cell clonality assessment: past, present and future.

Etienne Mahe, Tevor Pugh, Suzanne Kamel-Reid

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical pathology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 42 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

42 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The T cell receptor landscape of childhood brain tumors.Science translational medicine · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. A pan-cancer gamma delta T cell repertoire.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. T-PLL Presenting with an Indolent Course.Case reports in hematology · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Etienne MaheDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6559-9339
Tevor PughDepartment of Medical Biophysics, The University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Suzanne Kamel-ReidDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, The University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

T cell clonality testing has important clinical and research value, providing a specific and reproducible assessment of clonal diversity in T cell proliferations. Here we review the conceptual foundations of T cell clonality assays, including T cell ontogeny and T cell receptor structure and function; we also provide an introduction to T cell receptor genomics and the concept of the T cell clonotype. This is followed by a review of historical and current methods by which T cell clonality may be assayed, including current assay limitations. Some of these assay limitations have been overcome by employing next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based technologies that are becoming a mainstay of modern molecular pathology. In this vein, we provide an introduction to NGS technologies, including a review of the preanalytical, analytical and postanalytical technologies relevant to T cell clonality NGS assays.

Indexed as

Cell LineageCell ProliferationGene OntologyGene Rearrangement, T-LymphocyteGenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansImmunophenotypingLymphoproliferative DisordersNeoplasm, ResidualPathology, MolecularReceptors, Antigen, T-CellSequence Analysis, DNAT-LymphocytesReceptors, Antigen, T-Cellgeneticslymphocytesmolecular pathologyoncology

Identifiers

PMID29055897
PMCPMC5868531

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.