ArticleBiotechnology letters2022
High efficiency sorting and outgrowth for single-cell cloning of mammalian cell lines.
Article in Biotechnology letters, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genome-wide CRISPR screening identifies cellular factors controlling nonviral genome editing efficiency.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Article
- Single-cell cloning and its approaches.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Review
- Thermal inkjet makes label-free single-cell proteomics accessible and easy.Frontiers in chemistry · 2024Article
- Development of a New Cell-Based AP-1 Gene Reporter Potency Assay for Anti-Anthrax Toxin Therapeutics.Toxins · 2023Article
- Removal of evolutionarily conserved functional MYC domains in a tilapia cell line using a vector-based CRISPR/Cas9 system.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Purification of retinal ganglion cells using low-pressure flow cytometry.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2023Article
- Microfluidic cell sorter sample preparation for genomic assays.Biomicrofluidics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Single-cell selection and cloning is required for multiple bioprocessing and cell engineering workflows. Dispensing efficiency and outgrowth were optimized for multiple common suspension (CHO ES, Expi293F, and Jurkat) and adherent (MCF-7, A549, CHO-K1, and HEK293) cell lines. Single-cell sorting using a low pressure microfluidic cell sorter, the WOLF Cell Sorter, was compared with limiting dilution at 0.5 cells/well to demonstrate the increased efficiency of using flow cytometry selection of cells. In this work, there was an average single cell deposition on Day 0 of 89.1% across all the cell lines tested compared to 41.2% when using limiting dilution. After growth for 14 days, 66.7% of single-cell clones sorted with the WOLF Cell Sorter survived and only 23.8% when using limiting dilution. Using the WOLF Cell Sorter for cell line development results in higher viable single-cell colonies and the ability to select subpopulations of single-cells using multiple parameters.
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.