Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30659223›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Considerations for high-yield, high-throughput cell enrichment: fluorescence versus magnetic sorting.

Bryan A Sutermaster, Eric M Darling

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 101 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
101citing 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

101 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. High-throughput single-cell isolation ofMicrobiology spectrum · 2026
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Advanced Microfluidics for Single Cell-Based Cancer Research.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

41 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Bryan A SutermasterCenter for Biomedical Engineering, Brown University, Providence, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3781-6201
Eric M DarlingCenter for Biomedical Engineering, Brown University, Providence, USA. eric_darling@brown.edu.

Funding

High-yield, lineage-specific enrichment of living mesenchymal stem cellsR01AR063642 · NIAMS · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI DARLING, ERIC M · 2013 to 2018
$1.8M
NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR063642
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Efficient sorting methods are required for the isolation of cellular subpopulations in basic science and translational applications. Despite this, throughputs, yields, viabilities, and processing times of common sorting methods like fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) and magnetic-activated cell sorting (MACS) are underreported. In the current study, we set out to quantify the ability of these sorting methods to separate defined mixtures of alkaline phosphatase liver/bone/kidney (ALPL)-expressing and non-expressing cell types. Results showed that initial MACS runs performed using manufacturer's recommended antibody and microbead concentrations produced inaccurate ALPL+ vs. ALPL- cell splits compared to FACS when ALPL+ cells were present in larger proportions (>~25%). Accuracy at all proportions could be achieved by using substantially higher concentrations of labeling reagents. Importantly, MACS sorts resulted in only 7-9% cell loss compared to ~70% cell loss for FACS. Additionally, MACS processing was 4-6 times faster than FACS for single, low proportion samples but took similar time for single, high-proportion samples. When processing multiple samples, MACS was always faster overall due to its ability to run samples in parallel. Average cell viability for all groups remained high (>83%), regardless of sorting method. Despite requiring substantial optimization, the ability of MACS to isolate increased cell numbers in less time than FACS may prove valuable in both basic science and translational, cell-based applications.

Indexed as

Alkaline PhosphataseCell SurvivalFlow CytometryGene ExpressionHumansImmunomagnetic SeparationAlkaline Phosphatase

Identifiers

PMID30659223
PMCPMC6338736

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.