ReviewBiomicrofluidics2020
Microfluidic single-cell analysis-Toward integration and total on-chip analysis.
Review in Biomicrofluidics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating single-cell transcriptomics with cellular phenotypes: cell morphology, CaBiophysical reviews · 2024Review
- Bio-inspired microfluidics: A review.Biomicrofluidics · 2023Review
- Back to Basics: A Simplified Improvement to Multiple Displacement Amplification for Microbial Single-Cell Genomics.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- RNA cytometry of single-cells using semi-permeable microcapsules.Nucleic acids research · 2023Article
- Continuous Submicron Particle Separation Via Vortex-Enhanced Ionic Concentration Polarization: A Numerical Investigation.Micromachines · 2022Article
- A Critical Review on the Sensing, Control, and Manipulation of Single Molecules on Optofluidic Devices.Micromachines · 2022Review
- Appreciating the role of cell shape changes in the mechanobiology of epithelial tissues.Biophysics reviews · 2022Review
- Reconfigurable microfluidics.Nature reviews. Chemistry · 2022Review
- Review of Microfluidic Methods for Cellular Lysis.Micromachines · 2021Review
- The Microfluidic Trainer: Design, Fabrication and Validation of a Tool for Testing and Improving Manual Skills.Micromachines · 2020Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Various types of single-cell analyses are now extensively used to answer many biological questions, and with this growth in popularity, potential drawbacks to these methods are also becoming apparent. Depending on the specific application, workflows can be laborious, low throughput, and run the risk of contamination. Microfluidic designs, with their advantages of being high throughput, low in reaction volume, and compatible with bio-inert materials, have been widely used to improve single-cell workflows in all major stages of single-cell applications, from cell sorting to lysis, to sample processing and readout. Yet, designing an integrated microfluidic chip that encompasses the entire single-cell workflow from start to finish remains challenging. In this article, we review the current microfluidic approaches that cover different stages of processing in single-cell analysis and discuss the prospects and challenges of achieving a full integrated workflow to achieve total single-cell analysis in one device.
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.