Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29686723›Full record

ArticlePlant methods2018

Comparison of six different methods to calculate cell densities.

Carolina Camacho-Fernández, David Hervás, Alba Rivas-Sendra, Mª Pilar Marín, Jose M Seguí-Simarro

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plant methods, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 98 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. ProteolyticMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Calcium levels modulate embryo yield inFrontiers in plant science · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Anther and Isolated Microspore Culture in Eggplant (Solanum melongena L.).Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Carolina Camacho-Fernández1COMAV - Universitat Politècnica de València, CPI, Edificio 8E - Escalera I, Camino de Vera, s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain.
David Hervás2Biostatistics Unit - IIS La Fe, Valencia, Spain.
Alba Rivas-Sendra1COMAV - Universitat Politècnica de València, CPI, Edificio 8E - Escalera I, Camino de Vera, s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain.
Mª Pilar Marín3Microscopy Unit - IIS La Fe, Valencia, Spain.
Jose M Seguí-Simarro1COMAV - Universitat Politècnica de València, CPI, Edificio 8E - Escalera I, Camino de Vera, s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7672-4169
Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Fe · ESUniversitat Politècnica de València · ESUniversidad Regional Amazónica IKIAM · EC

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor in vitro culture of plant and animal cells, one of the critical steps is to adjust the initial cell density. A typical example of this is isolated microspore culture, where specific cell densities have been determined for different species. Out of these ranges, microspore growth is not induced, or is severely reduced. A similar situation occurs in many other plant and animal cell culture systems. Traditionally, researchers have used counting chambers (hemacytometers) to calculate cell densities, but little is still known about their technical advantages. In addition, much less information is available about other, alternative methods. In this work, using isolated eggplant microspore cultures and fluorescent beads (fluorospheres) as experimental systems, we performed a comprehensive comparison of six methods to calculate cell densities: (1) a Neubauer improved hemacytometer, (2) an automated cell counter, (3) a manual-counting method, and three flow cytometry methods based on (4) autofluorescence, (5) propidium iodide staining, and (6) side scattered light (SSC).

resultsOur results show that from a technical perspective, hemacytometers are the most reasonable option for cell counting, which may explain their widely spread use. Automated cell counters represent a good compromise between precision and affordability, although with limited accuracy. Finally, the methods based on flow cytometry were, by far, the best in terms of reproducibility and agreement between them, but they showed deficient accuracy and precision.

conclusionsTogether, our results show a thorough technical evaluation of each counting method, provide unambiguous arguments to decide which one is the most convenient for the particular case of each laboratory, and in general, shed light into the best way to determine cell densities for in vitro cell cultures. They may have an impact in such a practice not only in the context of microspore culture, but also in any other plant cell culture procedure, or in any process involving particle counting.

Indexed as

Automated cell counterCell countingFlow cytometryFluorospheresHemacytometerImage analysisMicroscopyMicrospore culture

Identifiers

PMID29686723
PMCPMC5901878
OpenAlexW2804825864

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.