ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2023
Assessing the suitability of cell counting methods during different stages of a cell processing workflow using an ISO 20391-2 guided study design and analysis.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes and their use in a cardiac organ-on-a-chip to assay electrophysiology, calcium and contractility.Nature protocols · 2025Review
- Automated smartphone based cell analysis platform.Npj imaging · 2025Article
- Challenges of Cell Counting in Cell Therapy Products.Cell transplantationReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cell counting is a fundamental measurement for determining viable cell numbers in biomanufacturing processes. The properties of different cell types and the range of intended uses for cell counts within a biomanufacturing process can lead to challenges in identifying suitable counting methods for each potential application. This is further amplified by user subjectivity in identifying the cells of interest and further identifying viable cells. Replacement of traditionally used manual counting methods with automated systems has alleviated some of these issues. However, a single cell type can exhibit different physical properties at various stages of cell processing which is further compounded by process impurities such as cell debris or magnetic beads. These factors make it challenging to develop a robust cell counting method that offers a high level of confidence in the results. Several initiatives from standards development organizations have attempted to address this critical need for standardization in cell counting. This study utilizes flow-based and image-based methods for the quantitative measurement of cell concentration and viability in the absence of a reference material, based on the tools and guidance provided by the International of Standards (ISO) and the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Primary cells were examined at different stages of cell processing in a cell therapy workflow. Results from this study define a systematic approach that enables the identification of counting methods and parameters that are best suited for specific cell types and workflows to ensure accuracy and consistency. Cell counting is a foundational method used extensively along various steps of cell and gene therapy. The standard used in this study may be applied to other cell and gene therapy processes to enable accurate measurement of parameters required to guide critical decisions throughout the development and production process. Using a framework that confirms the suitability of the cell counting method used can minimize variability in the process and final product.
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.