You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Single cell isolation process with laser induced forward transfer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Biological Engineering, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13036-016-0045-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yu Deng, Philippe Renaud, Zhongning Guo, Zhigang Huang, Ying Chen |
| Abstract |
A viable single cell is crucial for studies of single cell biology. In this paper, laser-induced forward transfer (LIFT) was used to isolate individual cell with a closed chamber designed to avoid contamination and maintain humidity. Hela cells were used to study the impact of laser pulse energy, laser spot size, sacrificed layer thickness and working distance. The size distribution, number and proliferation ratio of separated cells were statistically evaluated. Glycerol was used to increase the viscosity of the medium and alginate were introduced to soften the landing process. The role of laser pulse energy, the spot size and the thickness of titanium in energy absorption in LIFT process was theoretically analyzed with Lambert-Beer and a thermal conductive model. After comprehensive analysis, mechanical damage was found to be the dominant factor affecting the size and proliferation ratio of the isolated cells. An orthogonal experiment was conducted, and the optimal conditions were determined as: laser pulse energy, 9 μJ; spot size, 60 μm; thickness of titanium, 12 nm; working distance, 700 μm;, glycerol, 2% and alginate depth, greater than 1 μm. With these conditions, along with continuous incubation, a single cell could be transferred by the LIFT with one shot, with limited effect on cell size and viability. LIFT conducted in a closed chamber under optimized condition is a promising method for reliably isolating single cells. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 26% |
| Researcher | 8 | 23% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 5 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 10 | 29% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 14% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 5 | 14% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 11 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 August 2019.
All research outputs
#7,531,132
of 22,979,862 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biological Engineering
#115
of 263 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,294
of 421,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biological Engineering
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,979,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 263 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 421,894 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.