ArticlePloS one2021
Evaluating sources of technical variability in the mechano-node-pore sensing pipeline and their effect on the reproducibility of single-cell mechanical phenotyping.
Article in PloS one, 2021. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cellular mechanical properties can reveal physiologically relevant characteristics in many cell types, and several groups have developed microfluidics-based platforms to perform high-throughput single-cell mechanical testing. However, prior work has performed only limited characterization of these platforms' technical variability and reproducibility. Here, we evaluate the repeatability performance of mechano-node-pore sensing, a single-cell mechanical phenotyping platform developed by our research group. We measured the degree to which device-to-device variability and semi-manual data processing affected this platform's measurements of single-cell mechanical properties. We demonstrated high repeatability across the entire technology pipeline even for novice users. We then compared results from identical mechano-node-pore sensing experiments performed by researchers in two different laboratories with different analytical instruments, demonstrating that the mechanical testing results from these two locations are in agreement. Our findings quantify the expectation of technical variability in mechano-node-pore sensing even in minimally experienced hands. Most importantly, we find that the repeatability performance we measured is fully sufficient for interpreting biologically relevant single-cell mechanical measurements with high confidence.
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.