Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 173

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

High-Throughput Secretomic Analysis of Single Cells to Assess Functional Cellular Heterogeneity

Open access
Lu, Yao, Chen, Jonathan J., Mu, Luye, Xue, Qiong, Wu, Yu, Wu, Pei-Hsun, Li, Jie, Vortmeyer, Alexander O., Miller-Jensen, Kathryn, Wirtz, Denis, Fan, Rong·2013·Analytical Chemistry
DOI 10.1021/ac400082e
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Secreted proteins dictate a range of cellular functions in human health and disease. Because of the high degree of cellular heterogeneity and, more importantly, polyfunctionality of individual cells, there is an unmet need to simultaneously measure an array of proteins from single cells and to rapidly assay a large number of single cells (more than 1000) in parallel. We describe a simple bioanalytical assay platform consisting of a large array of subnanoliter microchambers integrated with high-density antibody barcode microarrays for highly multiplexed protein detection from over a thousand single cells in parallel. This platform has been tested for both cell lines and complex biological samples such as primary cells from patients. We observed distinct heterogeneity among the single cell secretomic signatures that, for the first time, can be directly correlated to the cells' physical behavior such as migration. Compared to the state-of-the-art protein secretion assay such as ELISpot and emerging microtechnology-enabled assays, our approach offers both high throughput and high multiplicity. It also has a number of clinician-friendly features such as ease of operation, low sample consumption, and standardized data analysis, representing a potentially transformative tool for informative monitoring of cellular function and immunity in patients.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/ac400082e

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. Rothenberg E. V., 2007, Nat. Immunol., 8, 441, 10.1038/ni1461 · DOI
  2. Hanahan D., 2011, Cell, 144, 646, 10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Gnecchi M., 2008, Circ. Res., 103, 1204, 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.108.176826 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Niepel M., 2009, Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol., 13, 556, 10.1016/j.cbpa.2009.09.015 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Cohen A. A., 2008, Science, 322, 1511, 10.1126/science.1160165 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Sachs K., 2005, Science, 308, 523, 10.1126/science.1105809 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Kotecha N., 2008, Cancer Cell, 14, 335, 10.1016/j.ccr.2008.08.014 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Irish J. M., 2004, Cell, 118, 217, 10.1016/j.cell.2004.06.028 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Prussin C., 1997, J. Clin. Immunol., 17, 195, 10.1023/A:1027350226435 · doi:10.1023/a:1027350226435
  10. Sachdeva N., 2007, Front. Biosci., 12, 4682, 10.2741/2418 · DOI
  11. Stratov I., 2004, Curr. Drug Targets, 5, 71, 10.2174/1389450043490686 · doi:10.2174/1389450043490686
  12. Henshall M., 2007, Genet. Eng. Biotechnol. News, 27, 1
  13. Chen S., 2007, Nat. Methods, 4, 437, 10.1038/nmeth1035 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Liotta L. A., 2003, Cancer Cell, 3, 317, 10.1016/S1535-6108(03)00086-2 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Wang D. J., 2010, Trends Biotechnol., 28, 281, 10.1016/j.tibtech.2010.03.002 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Cheong R., 2009, Sci. Signal., 2, pl2, 10.1126/scisignal.275pl2 · DOI
  17. Love J. C., 2006, Nat. Biotechnol., 24, 703, 10.1038/nbt1210 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Lee S. S., 2012, Integr. Biol., 4, 381, 10.1039/c2ib00144f · doi:10.1039/c2ib00144f
  19. Rowat A. C., 2009, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 106, 18149, 10.1073/pnas.0903163106 · DOI
  20. Lecault V., 2011, Nat. Methods, 8, 581, 10.1038/nmeth.1614 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Shin Y. S., 2011, Biophys. J., 100, 2378, 10.1016/j.bpj.2011.04.025 · DOI
  22. Unger M. A., 2000, Science, 288, 113, 10.1126/science.288.5463.113 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Fan R., 2008, Nat. Biotechnol., 26, 1373, 10.1038/nbt.1507 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Raman D., 2007, Cancer Lett., 256, 137, 10.1016/j.canlet.2007.05.013 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Dranoff G., 2004, Nat. Rev. Cancer, 4, 11, 10.1038/nrc1252 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Zou W., 2005, Nat. Rev. Cancer, 5, 263, 10.1038/nrc1586 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Wu Y., 2012, PLoS Comput. Biol., 8, e1002355, 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002355 · DOI
  28. Aderem A., 2000, Nature, 406, 782, 10.1038/35021228 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Singh R. K., 1994, Cancer Res., 54, 3242
  30. Li A., 2003, J. Immunol., 170, 3369, 10.4049/jimmunol.170.6.3369 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Waugh D. J. J., 2008, Clin. Cancer Res., 14, 6735, 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-4843 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Lesniak M. S., 2004, Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery, 3, 499, 10.1038/nrd1414 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Dvorak H. F., 2002, J. Clin. Oncol., 20, 4368, 10.1200/JCO.2002.10.088 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Reardon D. A., 2006, Oncologist, 11, 152, 10.1634/theoncologist.11-2-152 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Rich J. N., 2004, Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery, 3, 430, 10.1038/nrd1380 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Bhatia S., 2012, Nat. Biotechnol., 30, 604, 10.1038/nbt.2294 · DOI
  37. Bendall S. C., 2012, Nat. Biotechnol., 30, 639, 10.1038/nbt.2283 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Michor F., 2010, Cancer Prev. Res., 3, 1361, 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-10-0234 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Seder R. A., 2008, Nat. Rev. Immunol., 8
  40. Adams J. D., 2008, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 105, 18165, 10.1073/pnas.0809795105 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Han Q., 2012, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 109, 1607, 10.1073/pnas.1117194109 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 173

Metadata

Authors
Lu, Y., Chen, J. J., Mu, L., Xue, Q., Wu, Y., Wu, P.-H., Li, J., Vortmeyer, A. O., Miller-Jensen, K., Wirtz, D., & Fan, R.
Venue
Analytical Chemistry
Publisher
American Chemical Society (ACS)
Published
2013-02-01
Volume
85
Issue
4
Pages
2548-2556
ISSN
  • 0003-2700 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-6882
DOI
10.1021/ac400082e
OpenAlex
W2168204150
Cited by
173
References
8
FWCI
6.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.