Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39900756›Full record

ReviewMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2025

Spatial-Omics Methods and Applications.

Arutha Kulasinghe, Naomi Berrell, Meg L Donovan, Benedikt S Nilges

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
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

4 authors.

Arutha KulasingheFrazer Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Naomi BerrellQueensland Spatial Biology Centre, Wesley Research Institute, The Wesley Hospital, Auchenflower, QLD, Australia.
Meg L DonovanQueensland Spatial Biology Centre, Wesley Research Institute, The Wesley Hospital, Auchenflower, QLD, Australia.
Benedikt S NilgesOMAPiX GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany. benedikt.nilges@omapix.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traditional tissue profiling approaches have evolved from bulk studies to single-cell analysis over the last decade; however, the spatial context in tissues and microenvironments has always been lost. Over the last 5 years, spatial technologies have emerged that enabled researchers to investigate tissues in situ for proteins and transcripts without losing anatomy and histology. The field of spatial-omics enables highly multiplexed analysis of biomolecules like RNAs and proteins in their native spatial context-and has matured from initial proof-of-concept studies to a thriving field with widespread applications from basic research to translational and clinical studies. While there has been wide adoption of spatial technologies, there remain challenges with the standardization of methodologies, sample compatibility, throughput, resolution, and ease of use. In this chapter, we discuss the current state of the field and highlight technological advances and limitations.

Indexed as

GenomicsProteomicsAnimalsHumansSingle-Cell AnalysisDigital pathologySpatial biologySpatial-omicsSpatial proteomicsSpatial transcriptomics

Identifiers

PMID39900756

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.