Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33513846›Full record

ArticleBiomedicines2021

Conventional, High-Resolution and Imaging Flow Cytometry: Benchmarking Performance in Characterisation of Extracellular Vesicles.

Jaco Botha, Haley R Pugsley, Aase Handberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomedicines, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing 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

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  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

3 authors.

Jaco BothaDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Aalborg University Hospital, North Denmark Region, DK-9000 Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-8889-9959
Haley R PugsleyLuminex Corporation, Seattle, WA 98119, USA.
Aase HandbergDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Aalborg University Hospital, North Denmark Region, DK-9000 Aalborg, Denmark.

Funding

Toyota-fonden Denmark KJ/BG-8967 F
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Flow cytometry remains a commonly used methodology due to its ability to characterise multiple parameters on single particles in a high-throughput manner. In order to address limitations with lacking sensitivity of conventional flow cytometry to characterise extracellular vesicles (EVs), novel, highly sensitive platforms, such as high-resolution and imaging flow cytometers, have been developed. We provided comparative benchmarks of a conventional FACS Aria III, a high-resolution Apogee A60 Micro-PLUS and the ImageStream X Mk II imaging flow cytometry platform. Nanospheres were used to systematically characterise the abilities of each platform to detect and quantify populations with different sizes, refractive indices and fluorescence properties, and the repeatability in concentration determinations was reported for each population. We evaluated the ability of the three platforms to detect different EV phenotypes in blood plasma and the intra-day, inter-day and global variabilities in determining EV concentrations. By applying this or similar methodology to characterise methods, researchers would be able to make informed decisions on choice of platforms and thereby be able to match suitable flow cytometry platforms with projects based on the needs of each individual project. This would greatly contribute to improving the robustness and reproducibility of EV studies.

Indexed as

exosomesextracellular vesiclesflow cytometryhigh-resolution flow cytometryimaging flow cytometrymicrovesiclesrepeatabilityreproducibilitystandardisationsubmicron particle analysis

Identifiers

PMID33513846
PMCPMC7911094

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.