Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28270408›Full record

ArticleJournal of leukocyte biology2017

Phenotypic and functional consequences of different isolation protocols on skin mononuclear phagocytes.

Rachel A Botting, Kirstie M Bertram, Heeva Baharlou, Kerrie J Sandgren, James Fletcher, Jake W Rhodes, Hafsa Rana, Toby M Plasto, Xin Maggie Wang, Jake J K Lim and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of leukocyte biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Revisiting the Experimental Methods for Human Skin T-Cell Analysis.JID innovations : skin science from molecules to population health · 2022
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Making the most of high-dimensional cytometry data.Immunology and cell biology · 2021
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Rachel A BottingCentre for Virus Research, The Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.
Kirstie M BertramCentre for Virus Research, The Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.
Heeva BaharlouCentre for Virus Research, The Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.
Kerrie J SandgrenCentre for Virus Research, The Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.
James FletcherInstitute of Cellular Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Jake W RhodesCentre for Virus Research, The Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.
Hafsa RanaCentre for Virus Research, The Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.
Toby M PlastoCentre for Virus Research, The Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.
Xin Maggie WangCentre for Virus Research, The Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.
Jake J K LimParramatta, New South Wales, Australia.
Laith BarnoutiAustralia Plastic Surgery, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Mark P KohoutAustralia Plastic Surgery, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Tim PapadopoulosCosmetic Culture, Pyrmont, New South Wales, Australia.
Steve MertenPure Aesthetics Plastic Surgery, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Norman OlbournePalm Beach, New South Wales, Australia; and.
Anthony L CunninghamCentre for Virus Research, The Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.
Muzlifah HaniffaInstitute of Cellular Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Andrew N HarmanCentre for Virus Research, The Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia; andrew.harman@sydney.edu.au.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust WT107931/Z/15/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mononuclear phagocytes are present in skin and mucosa and represent one of the first lines of defense against invading pathogens, which they detect via an array of pathogen-binding receptors expressed on their surface. However, their extraction from tissue is difficult, and the isolation technique used has functional consequences on the cells obtained. Here, we compare mononuclear phagocytes isolated from human skin using either enzymatic digestion or spontaneous migration. Cells isolated via enzymatic digestion are in an immature state, and all subsets are easily defined. However, cells isolated by spontaneous migration are in a mature state, and CD141 cross-presenting DCs (cDC1) are more difficult to define. Different pathogen-binding receptors are susceptible to cleavage by blends of collagenase, demonstrating that great care must be taken in choosing the correct enzyme blend to digest tissue if carrying out pathogen-interaction assays. Finally, we have optimized mononuclear phagocyte culture conditions to enhance their survival after liberation from the tissue.

Indexed as

Cell MovementCell SeparationEnzymesHumansMonocytesPhagocytesPhenotypeSkinEnzymesDCex vivohumanmacrophage

Identifiers

PMID28270408
PMCPMC5433859

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.