ArticleAmerican journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology2019
A call to adopt a "fit for purpose" approach to antibody validation for flow cytometry analyses of stem cell models and beyond.
Article in American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- An American Physiological Society cross-journal Call for Papers on "Deconstructing Organs: Single-Cell Analyses, Decellularized Organs, Organoids, and Organ-on-a-Chip Models".American journal of physiology. Lung cellular and molecular physiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Human pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes (hPSC-CMs) can be exploited as models for a wide range of research applications and numerous protocols for generating hPSC-CMs have been described. However, it is currently not possible to direct differentiation to a single, homogeneous end point, and the resulting heterogeneity may be variable among laboratories, cell lines, and protocols. Consequently, the ability to assess phenotypic heterogeneity of the cell population is critical to the interpretation, repeatability, and reproduction of hPSC-CM studies. While flow cytometry is well suited for this purpose, a review of published literature reveals there is currently no consensus regarding which marker, antibody, or protocol is best suited to enable comparisons of hPSC-CM culture heterogeneity. Moreover, the lack of available experimental detail, combined with the variability in the approaches used for hPSC-CM evaluation, makes it challenging to reproduce, interpret, and compare published data. Consequently, this article calls for an alignment of the way researchers approach the routine use and documentation of the antibodies and controls used during flow cytometry-based assessment of hPSC-CM cultures. We advocate for the adoption of a "fit for purpose" validation mindset, whereby antibodies and experimental conditions are demonstrated as specific within a defined experimental design and biological context. Overall, we expect that by adhering to rigorous standards for antibody validation and use, reporting of experimental details, and presentation of data, the concepts emphasized here will promote enhanced utility and dialogue regarding hPSC-CM for a variety of research and translational applications by enabling more accurate comparisons of results among studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.