ArticleHeliyon2020
Accuracy of spiked cell counting methods for designing a pre-clinical tumorigenicity study model.
Article in Heliyon, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvaluations for the tumorigenicity of transplantation of stem cell products is mandatory for clinical application. It is of importance to establish a system to accurately quantify contaminated tumorigenic cells regardless of the format of stem cell product. In the present report, we aimed to examine the accuracy of the quantification of tumorigenic cell numbers with commonly used 2 methods, quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and flow cytometry (FCM) using experimental models of stem cell products spiked with tumorigenic cells.
methodsHuman mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs) and melanoma Mewo-Luc cells constitutively expressing luciferase were used. We stained Mewo-Luc cells with a cell linker then spiked onto hMSC suspensions and hMSC sheets. We validated the accuracy of 10-fold serial dilution technique for Mewo-Luc cell suspension using a Coulter counter. The samples spiked with Mewo-Luc cells were subjected to qPCR and FCM analyses, respectively for the quantification of Mewo-Luc cells.
resultsTen-fold serial dilutions of Mewo-Luc cells were performed accurately with small deviation. In samples spiked with or less than 100 cells in hMSC suspensions, and samples spiked with or less than 1,000 cells in hMSC sheets showed significantly higher cell numbers in calculations by FCM, respectively (suspensions; qPCR vs FCM: 100 cells: 59 ± 25 vs 232 ± 35 cells, p = 0.022/10 cells: 21 ± 7 vs 114 ± 27 cells, p = 0.030, sheets; qPCR vs FCM: 1,000 cells: 1723 ± 258 vs 5810 ± 878 cells, p = 0.012/100 cells: 110 ± 18 vs 973 ± 232 cells, p = 0.012/10 cells: 20 ± 6 vs 141 ± 36 cells, p = 0.030).
conclusionDifferences in accuracy between quantification methods should be considered in designing a tumorigenicity study model.
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.