Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28486563›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2017

In vitro induction of NETosis: Comprehensive live imaging comparison and systematic review.

Tamara Hoppenbrouwers, Anouchska S A Autar, Andi R Sultan, Tsion E Abraham, Wiggert A van Cappellen, Adriaan B Houtsmuller, Willem J B van Wamel, Heleen M M van Beusekom, Johan W van Neck, Moniek P M de Maat

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 138 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
138citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

138 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 207 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Role of Neutrophils on the Ocular Surface.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The Immunopathogenesis of uveitis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

78 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tamara HoppenbrouwersDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9219-461X
Anouchska S A AutarDepartment of Hematology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Andi R SultanDepartment of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Tsion E AbrahamOptical Imaging Center, Department of Pathology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Wiggert A van CappellenOptical Imaging Center, Department of Pathology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Adriaan B HoutsmullerOptical Imaging Center, Department of Pathology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Willem J B van WamelDepartment of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Heleen M M van BeusekomDepartment of Cardiology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Johan W van NeckDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Moniek P M de MaatDepartment of Hematology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7749-334X
Erasmus MC · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultiple inducers of in vitro Neutrophil Extracellular Trap (NET) formation (NETosis) have been described. Since there is much variation in study design and results, our aim was to create a systematic review of NETosis inducers and perform a standardized in vitro study of NETosis inducers important in (cardiac) wound healing.

methodsIn vitro NETosis was studied by incubating neutrophils with PMA, living and dead bacteria (S. aureus and E. coli), LPS, (activated) platelets (supernatant), glucose and calcium ionophore Ionomycin using 3-hour periods of time-lapse confocal imaging.

resultsPMA is a consistent and potent inducer of NETosis. Ionomycin also consistently resulted in extrusion of DNA, albeit with a process that differs from the NETosis process induced by PMA. In our standardized experiments, living bacteria were also potent inducers of NETosis, but dead bacteria, LPS, (activated) platelets (supernatant) and glucose did not induce NETosis.

conclusionOur systematic review confirms that there is much variation in study design and results of NETosis induction. Our experimental results confirm that under standardized conditions, PMA, living bacteria and Ionomycin all strongly induce NETosis, but real-time confocal imaging reveal different courses of events.

Indexed as

Extracellular TrapsEscherichia coliFluorescent Antibody TechniqueHumansIn Vitro TechniquesMyocardiumStaphylococcus aureusWound Healing

Identifiers

PMID28486563
PMCPMC5423591
OpenAlexW2612784563

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.