↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of six different methods to calculate cell densities

Overview of attention for article published in Plant Methods, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
186 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of six different methods to calculate cell densities
Published in
Plant Methods, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13007-018-0297-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carolina Camacho-Fernández, David Hervás, Alba Rivas-Sendra, Mª Pilar Marín, Jose M. Seguí-Simarro

Abstract

For in vitro culture of plant and animal cells, one of the critical steps is to adjust the initial cell density. A typical example of this is isolated microspore culture, where specific cell densities have been determined for different species. Out of these ranges, microspore growth is not induced, or is severely reduced. A similar situation occurs in many other plant and animal cell culture systems. Traditionally, researchers have used counting chambers (hemacytometers) to calculate cell densities, but little is still known about their technical advantages. In addition, much less information is available about other, alternative methods. In this work, using isolated eggplant microspore cultures and fluorescent beads (fluorospheres) as experimental systems, we performed a comprehensive comparison of six methods to calculate cell densities: (1) a Neubauer improved hemacytometer, (2) an automated cell counter, (3) a manual-counting method, and three flow cytometry methods based on (4) autofluorescence, (5) propidium iodide staining, and (6) side scattered light (SSC). Our results show that from a technical perspective, hemacytometers are the most reasonable option for cell counting, which may explain their widely spread use. Automated cell counters represent a good compromise between precision and affordability, although with limited accuracy. Finally, the methods based on flow cytometry were, by far, the best in terms of reproducibility and agreement between them, but they showed deficient accuracy and precision. Together, our results show a thorough technical evaluation of each counting method, provide unambiguous arguments to decide which one is the most convenient for the particular case of each laboratory, and in general, shed light into the best way to determine cell densities for in vitro cell cultures. They may have an impact in such a practice not only in the context of microspore culture, but also in any other plant cell culture procedure, or in any process involving particle counting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 186 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 186 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 36 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 12%
Researcher 21 11%
Student > Master 21 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 4%
Other 13 7%
Unknown 65 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 35 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 15%
Engineering 12 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 4%
Other 24 13%
Unknown 70 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 31 July 2020.
All research outputs
#13,592,375
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from Plant Methods
#636
of 1,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,129
of 296,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Plant Methods
#16
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 296,868 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.