ArticleCancer cell international2025
Evaluation of plasma cell sorting methods in multiple myeloma patients: flow cytometry versus magnetic beads.
Article in Cancer cell international, 2025. 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.
- Isolation of high-purity muscle stem cells through ice-cold treatment method for the production of cell cultured meat.Current research in food science · 2025Article
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
backgroundThe prognosis of a plasma cell neoplasm (PCN) varies depending on the presence of genetic abnormalities. However, detecting sensitive genetic mutations poses challenges due to the heterogeneous nature of the cell population in bone marrow aspiration. The established gold standard for cell sorting is fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS), which is associated with lengthy processing times, substantial cell quantities, and expensive equipment. Magnetic-activated cell sorting (MACS) can be performed without the need for FACS equipment and allows for rapid sorting of many cells, making it a practical alternative. Our objective is to conduct a comparative analysis of these two sorting techniques to assess whether MACS can viably replace FACS in clinical applications.
methodsPlasma cell purity, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and next-generation sequencing analyses were performed on FACS- and MACS-sorted bone marrow samples from 31 PCN patients.
resultsThe MACS-sorted samples yielded a higher percentage of plasma cells than FACS-sorted samples under microscopy (p = 0.0156) and flow cytometry (p = 0.0313). FISH performed by two methods in 10 samples showed the same results, and the proportion of abnormal cells was significantly higher in MACS than in FACS (p = 0.001). Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test analysis showed that the median of differences of variant allele frequency (VAF) of two methods (VAF of MACS minus VAF of FACS) in the DNMT3A, TET2, and ASXL1 (DTA) group was - 0.006555 (p = 0.0020), while that in the non-DTA group was 0.002805 (p = 0.0019). Ten copy number variants (CNVs) were found in both FACS- and MACS-sorted samples, eight were identified only in MACS-sorted samples, and one was detected only in FACS-sorted samples.
conclusionOur study demonstrates that MACS is a viable alternative for plasma cell sorting in bone marrow samples of patients with PCN.
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.