ReviewBiosensors2015
Biocompatible Hydrogels for Microarray Cell Printing and Encapsulation.
Review in Biosensors, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hydrogel Microarray for Bioanalytical Applications: Preliminary Study on Material Properties.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- An Automated High-Throughput Screening (HTS) Spotter for 3D Tumor Spheroid Formation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- High-Throughput Screening of Compound Neurotoxicity Using 3D-Cultured Neural Stem Cells on a 384-Pillar Plate.Current protocols · 2021Article
- High-content imaging of 3D-cultured neural stem cells on a 384-pillar plate for the assessment of cytotoxicity.Toxicology in vitro : an international journal published in association with BIBRA · 2020Article
- Deconvolution of images from 3D printed cells in layers on a chip.Biotechnology progress · 2018Article
- Islet Microencapsulation: Strategies and Clinical Status in Diabetes.Current diabetes reports · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Conventional drug screening processes are a time-consuming and expensive endeavor, but highly rewarding when they are successful. To identify promising lead compounds, millions of compounds are traditionally screened against therapeutic targets on human cells grown on the surface of 96-wells. These two-dimensional (2D) cell monolayers are physiologically irrelevant, thus, often providing false-positive or false-negative results, when compared to cells grown in three-dimensional (3D) structures such as hydrogel droplets. However, 3D cell culture systems are not easily amenable to high-throughput screening (HTS), thus inherently low throughput, and requiring relatively large volume for cell-based assays. In addition, it is difficult to control cellular microenvironments and hard to obtain reliable cell images due to focus position and transparency issues. To overcome these problems, miniaturized 3D cell cultures in hydrogels were developed via cell printing techniques where cell spots in hydrogels can be arrayed on the surface of glass slides or plastic chips by microarray spotters and cultured in growth media to form cells encapsulated 3D droplets for various cell-based assays. These approaches can dramatically reduce assay volume, provide accurate control over cellular microenvironments, and allow us to obtain clear 3D cell images for high-content imaging (HCI). In this review, several hydrogels that are compatible to microarray printing robots are discussed for miniaturized 3D cell cultures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.