ArticleJournal of lipid research2021
Lysis reagents, cell numbers, and calculation method influence high-throughput measurement of HDL-mediated cholesterol efflux capacity.
Article in Journal of lipid research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lomitapide modifies high-density lipoprotein function in homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia.European journal of medical research · 2025Trial
- Reverse cholesterol transport: current assay methods, alterations with disease and response to therapeutic intervention.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- Cell-free, high-density lipoprotein-specific phospholipid efflux assay predicts incident cardiovascular disease.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2023Article
- Improvement in bilirubin influence on cholesterol efflux capacity evaluation using the immobilized liposome-bound gel beads method.Bioscience reports · 2023Article
- High-density lipoprotein revisited: biological functions and clinical relevance.European heart journal · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
HDL-mediated cholesterol efflux capacity (CEC) may protect against cardiovascular disease. However, CEC assays are not standardized, hampering their application in large cohorts and comparison between studies. To improve standardization, we systematically investigated technical differences between existing protocols that influence assay performance that have not been previously addressed. CEC was measured in 96-well plates using J774A.1 macrophages labeled with BODIPY-cholesterol and incubated for 4 h with 2% apolipoprotein B-depleted human serum. The time zero method, which calculates CEC using control wells, and the per-well method, which calculates CEC based on the actual content of BODIPY-cholesterol in each well, were compared in 506 samples. We showed that the per-well method had a considerably lower sample rejection rate (4.74% vs. 13.44%) and intra-assay (4.48% vs. 5.28%) and interassay coefficients of variation (two controls: 7.85%, 9.86% vs. 13.58%, 15.29%) compared with the time zero method. Correction for plate-to-plate differences using four controls on each plate also improved assay performance of both methods. In addition, we observed that the lysis reagent used had a significant effect. Compared with cholic acid, lysis with sodium hydroxide results in higher (P = 0.0082) and Triton X-100 in lower (P = 0.0028) CEC values. Furthermore, large cell seeding errors (30% variation) greatly biased CEC for both referencing methods (P < 0.0001) as measured by a resazurin assay. In conclusion, lysis reagents, cell numbers, and assay setup greatly impact the quality and reliability of CEC quantification and should be considered when this method is newly established in a laboratory.
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.