ArticleScientific reports2025
A model workflow for microfluidic enrichment and genetic analysis of circulating melanoma cells.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Band-stop microfluidics for high-purity, label-free enrichment of viable cancer cells from whole blood.Lab on a chip · 2026Article
- Circulating tumor cells as biomarkers in melanoma: techniques, challenges, and clinical applications.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Circulating melanoma cells (CMCs) are responsible for the hematogenous spread of melanoma and, ultimately, metastasis. However, their study has been limited by the low abundance in patient blood and the heterogeneous expression of surface markers. The FDA-approved CellSearch platform enriches CD146-positive CMCs, whose number correlates with progression-free survival and overall survival. However, a single marker may not be sufficient to identify them all. The Parsortix system allows enrichment of CMCs based on their size and deformability, keeping them viable and suitable for downstream molecular analyses. In this study, we tested the strengths, weaknesses and potential convergences of both platforms to integrate the counting of CMCs with a protocol for their genetic analysis. Samples run on Parsortix were labeled with a customized melanoma antibody cocktail, which efficiently labeled and distinguished CMCs from endothelial cells/leukocytes. The capture rate of CellSearch and Parsortix was comparable for cell lines, but Parsortix had a higher capture rate in real-life samples. Moreover, double enrichment with both CellSearch and Parsortix succeeded in removing most of the leukocyte contamination, resulting in an almost pure CMC sample suitable for genetic analysis. In this regard, a proof-of-concept analysis of CMCs from a paradigmatic case of a metastatic uveal melanoma patient led to the identification of multiple genetic alterations. In particular, the GNAQ p.Q209L was identified as homozygous, while a deletion in BAP1 exon 9 was found hemizygous. Moreover, an isochromosome 8 and a homozygous deletion of the CDKN2A gene were detected. In conclusion, we have optimized an approach to successfully enrich and retrieve viable CMCs from metastatic melanoma patients. Moreover, this study provides proof-of-principle for the feasibility of a marker-agnostic CMC enrichment followed by CMC phenotypic identification and genetic analysis.Kindly check and confirm the processed contributed equally is correctly identify We confirm.
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.