Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34771495›Full record

ReviewCancers2021

A Multi-Modal Toolkit for Studying Neutrophils in Cancer and Beyond.

Diana Changirwa, Jared Schlechte, Braedon McDonald

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Engineering complexity in human tissue models of cancer.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2022
    Review
  3. 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

3 authors.

Diana ChangirwaImmunology Research Group, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 4N1, Canada.
Jared SchlechteImmunology Research Group, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 4N1, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1375-2570
Braedon McDonaldImmunology Research Group, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 4N1, Canada.

Funding

CIHR PJT-173296
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As key effector cells of the innate immune response, neutrophils are rapidly deployed to sites of inflammation where they deliver a payload of potent effector mechanisms that are essential for host defense against pathogens as well as tissue homeostasis. In addition, neutrophils are central contributors to the pathogenesis of a vast spectrum of inflammatory, degenerative, and neoplastic diseases. As our understanding of neutrophils in health and disease continually expands, so too does our appreciation of their complex and dynamic nature in vivo; from development, maturation, and trafficking to cellular heterogeneity and functional plasticity. Therefore, contemporary neutrophil research relies on multiple complementary methodologies to perform integrated analysis of neutrophil phenotypic heterogeneity, organ- and stimulus-specific trafficking mechanisms, as well as tailored effector functions in vivo. This review discusses established and emerging technologies used to study neutrophils, with a focus on in vivo imaging in animal models, as well as next-generation ex vivo model systems to study mechanisms of neutrophil function. Furthermore, we discuss how high-dimensional single-cell analysis technologies are driving a renaissance in neutrophil biology by redefining our understanding of neutrophil development, heterogeneity, and functional plasticity. Finally, we discuss innovative applications and emerging opportunities to integrate these high-dimensional, multi-modal techniques to deepen our understanding of neutrophils in cancer research and beyond.

Indexed as

intravital microscopymass cytometryneutrophilsorgan-on-a-chipproteomicssingle cell transcriptomics

Identifiers

PMID34771495
PMCPMC8582456

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.