Cited by 220Single-cell and spatial transcriptomicsInnovative Microfluidic and Catalytic Techniques InnovationGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

Cell fixation and preservation for droplet-based single-cell transcriptomics

Open access
Alles, Jonathan, Karaiskos, Nikos, Praktiknjo, Samantha D., Grosswendt, Stefanie, Wahle, Philipp, Ruffault, Pierre-Louis, Ayoub, Salah, Schreyer, Luisa +5 more·2017·BMC Biology

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recent developments in droplet-based microfluidics allow the transcriptional profiling of thousands of individual cells in a quantitative, highly parallel and cost-effective way. A critical, often limiting step is the preparation of cells in an unperturbed state, not altered by stress or ageing. Other challenges are rare cells that need to be collected over several days or samples prepared at different times or locations. METHODS: Here, we used chemical fixation to address these problems. Methanol fixation allowed us to stabilise and preserve dissociated cells for weeks without compromising single-cell RNA sequencing data. RESULTS: By using mixtures of fixed, cultured human and mouse cells, we first showed that individual transcriptomes could be confidently assigned to one of the two species. Single-cell gene expression from live and fixed samples correlated well with bulk mRNA-seq data. We then applied methanol fixation to transcriptionally profile primary cells from dissociated, complex tissues. Low RNA content cells from Drosophila embryos, as well as mouse hindbrain and cerebellum cells prepared by fluorescence-activated cell sorting, were successfully analysed after fixation, storage and single-cell droplet RNA-seq. We were able to identify diverse cell populations, including neuronal subtypes. As an additional resource, we provide 'dropbead', an R package for exploratory data analysis, visualization and filtering of Drop-seq data. CONCLUSIONS: We expect that the availability of a simple cell fixation method will open up many new opportunities in diverse biological contexts to analyse transcriptional dynamics at single-cell resolution.

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 · 10.1186/s12915-017-0383-5

Cites

26 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • scRNA-seq methods require fresh tissues, which can be difficult to obtain and lead to logistic complexities.

    “First, these methods require the use of fresh tissues, which can be difficult to obtain and thus lead to logistic complexities (Alles et al., 2017; Attar et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2018; Lafzi et al., 2018).”

    From Robust single-nucleus RNA sequencing reveals depot-specific cell population dynamics in adipose tissue remodeling during obesity (2025) · cites this paper as Alles et al., 2017

    The Background and Conclusions (pages not provided) describe difficulties preparing unperturbed cells, collecting rare cells, transporting clinical specimens, and coordinating experiments. But the paper demonstrates that fixed cells can be stored and used for droplet-based scRNA-seq, so it does not support the categorical claim that these methods require fresh tissues. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alles, J., Karaiskos, N., Praktiknjo, S. D., Grosswendt, S., Wahle, P., Ruffault, P.-L., Ayoub, S., Schreyer, L., Boltengagen, A., Birchmeier, C., Zinzen, R., Kocks, C., & Rajewsky, N.
Affiliations
Max Delbrück Center (DE)
Corresponding author
  • Kocks, Christine
  • Rajewsky, Nikolaus
Venue
BMC Biology
Published
2017-05-19
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
44-44
ISSN
1741-7007 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2950862527
Cited by
218
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 10 · 2013: 1
FWCI
10.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMC Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 665, cluster of excellence Neurocure)
  • Deutsches Zentrum für Herz-Kreislaufforschung (DZHK BER1.2VD)
  • European Molecular Biology Organization (EMBO fellowship)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Innovative Microfluidic and Catalytic Techniques Innovation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Keywords
cell fixation, methanol fixation, cell preservation, single-cell RNA sequencing, Drop-seq, droplet microfluidics, Drosophila embryo, neuronal cell types
MeSH terms
Methanol, Animals, Cells, Cultured, Cerebellum, Drosophila, Embryo, Nonmammalian, Flow Cytometry, Humans, Rhombencephalon, RNA, Messenger, Software, Sequence Analysis, RNA, Gene Expression Profiling, Mice, Single-Cell Analysis

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