Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29094731›Full record

ReviewThe Analyst2017

Microfluidic methods for aptamer selection and characterization.

Sean K Dembowski, Michael T Bowser

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Analyst, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Microfluidic Isolation of Aptamers for Intracellular Measurement of Radio-Responsive Proteins.Radiation (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute) · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Generation and Selection of Specific Aptamers TargetingInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Article
  18. Review
  19. The Application of Microfluidic Technologies in Aptamer Selection.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2021
    Review
  20. 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

2 authors.

Sean K DembowskiDepartment of Chemistry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. bowser@umn.edu.
Michael T Bowser

Funding

Microfluidic Selection of AptamersR01GM063533 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES · PI BOWSER, MICHAEL T · 2002 to 2015
$3.7M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM063533
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nucleic acid aptamers have tremendous potential as molecular recognition elements in biomedical targeting, analytical arrays, and self-signaling sensors. However, practical limitations and inefficiencies in the process of selecting novel aptamers (SELEX) have hampered widespread adoption of aptamer technologies. Many factors have recently contributed to more effective aptamer screening, but no influence has done more to increase the efficiency, scale, and automation of aptamer selection than that of new microfluidic SELEX techniques. This review introduces aptamers as a powerful chemical and biological tool, briefly highlights traditional SELEX techniques and their limitations, covers in detail the recent advancements in microfluidic methods of aptamer selection and characterization, and suggests possible future directions of the field.

Identifiers

PMID29094731
PMCPMC5819361

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.