Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39716041›Full record

ArticleFEBS open bio2025

Cost-effective and simple flow cytometry quantification of receptor-mediated autophagy using fluorescent tagging.

Mija Marinković, Ana Rožić, Denis Polančec, Ivana Novak

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in FEBS open bio, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Mija MarinkovićFaculty of Science, University of Split, Croatia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5194-9249
Ana RožićSchool of Medicine, University of Split, Croatia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6371-069X
Denis PolančecGreyledge Europe Ltd, Zagreb, Croatia.
Ivana NovakSchool of Medicine, University of Split, Croatia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0682-7052

Funding

Hrvatska Zaklada za Znanost DOK-2021-02-4248Hrvatska Zaklada za Znanost IP-2020-02-3883Hrvatska Zaklada za Znanost UIP-2013-11-5246
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mitophagy, a selective clearance of damaged or superfluous mitochondria via autophagy machinery and lysosomal degradation, is an evolutionarily conserved process essential for various physiological functions, including cellular differentiation and immune responses. Defects in mitophagy are implicated in numerous human diseases, such as neurodegenerative disorders, cancer, and metabolic conditions. Despite significant advancements in mitophagy research over recent decades, novel and robust methodologies are necessary to elucidate its molecular mechanisms comprehensively. In this study, we present a detailed protocol for quantitatively assessing mitophagy through flow cytometry using a mitochondria-targeted fluorescent mitophagy receptor, GFP-BNIP3L/NIX. This method offers a rapid alternative to conventional microscopy or immunoblotting techniques for analyzing mitophagy activity. Additionally, this approach can theoretically be adapted to utilize any fluorescent-tagged selective autophagy receptor, enabling the direct and rapid analysis of various types of receptor-mediated selective autophagy.

Indexed as

AutophagyFlow CytometryMitophagyCost-Benefit AnalysisFluorescent DyesGreen Fluorescent ProteinsHeLa CellsHumansMembrane ProteinsMitochondriaMitochondrial ProteinsProto-Oncogene ProteinsTumor Suppressor ProteinsBNIP3L protein, humanFluorescent DyesGreen Fluorescent ProteinsMembrane ProteinsMitochondrial ProteinsProto-Oncogene ProteinsTumor Suppressor ProteinsBNIP3L/NIXflow cytometryfluorescent taggingreceptor‐mediated mitophagy

Identifiers

PMID39716041
PMCPMC11961372

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.