| Title |
Towards an optimal and unbiased approach for tumor cell isolation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biomedical Microdevices, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10544-013-9757-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bhuvanendran Nair Gourikutty Sajay, Chia-Pin Chang, Hamizah Ahmad, Wong Chee Chung, Poenar Daniel Puiu, Abdur Rub Abdur Rahman |
| Abstract |
Our current understanding of clinical significance or the lack thereof of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) is biased by the technology used to isolate these rare cells. Despite the presence of a vast number of academic and commercial technologies, the lack of a standardized and optimized platform has been widely noted. We present a negative enrichment approach, integrating WBC depletion and chemical-free RBC depletion in the same setup without the need for centrifugation, washing or multiple sample handling steps. This approach achieves an average of >90 % recovery of spiked tumor cells and >99 % total WBC depletion in whole blood across multiple cell lines, in a simple and easy-to-use assay. The results presented herein and ongoing improvements aim to fulfill the need for a highly reliable, unbiased, standardized, and optimized CTC isolation platform, using component technologies that are validated for cell isolation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Singapore | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 20 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 29% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 24% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 10% |
| Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 3 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 6 | 29% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 19% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 14% |
| Materials Science | 3 | 14% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 2 | 10% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 March 2013.
All research outputs
#15,266,089
of 22,701,287 outputs
Outputs from Biomedical Microdevices
#554
of 746 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,716
of 216,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biomedical Microdevices
#7
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,701,287 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 746 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 216,178 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.