Application‐based guidelines for best practices in plant flow cytometry

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elwira Sliwinska ◽  
João Loureiro ◽  
Ilia J. Leitch ◽  
Petr Šmarda ◽  
Jillian Bainard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Flow Cytometry ◽  
Best Practices

Best Practices for Authentication of Cell Lines to Ensure Data Reproducibility and Integrity

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisabeth Vicente ◽  
Megan Lesniewski ◽  
Diana Newman ◽  
Zeljko Vujaskovic ◽  
Isabel L. Jackson
Keyword(s):  
Flow Cytometry ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Cell Line ◽  
Dna Barcoding ◽  
Cell Lines ◽  
Cell Identity ◽  
Purity Analysis ◽  
Primary Rabbit ◽  
Commercial Vendor ◽  
Aortic Endothelial

Cell line misidentification and contamination are major contributors to the reproducibility crisis in academic research. Authentication of cell lines provides assurances of the data generated; however, commercially available cells are often not subjected to rigorous identification testing. In this study, commercially available cell lines underwent testing to confirm cell identity and purity. The methods reported here outline the best practices for cell line authentication. Briefly, a commercially available primary rabbit aortic endothelial cell line was purchased for the intent of producing target proteins necessary for generating species-specific recombinant antibodies. These rabbit-specific antibodies would then be utilized for the development of in-house enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) to evaluate blood-based biomarkers of vascular injury after total-body irradiation. To authenticate the cell line, cell identity and purity were determined by single tandem repeat (STR) testing, flow cytometry, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 (CO1) DNA Barcoding in-house and/or through commercial vendors. Fresh cells obtained from a New Zealand White rabbit (Charles River, Wilmington, DE) were used as a positive control. The results of STR and flow cytometry analyses indicated the cells were not contaminated with human or mouse cells, and that the cells were not of endothelial origin. PCR demonstrated that cells were also not of rabbit origin, which was further confirmed by a third-party vendor. An unopened vial of cells was submitted to another vendor for CO1 DNA Barcoding analysis, which identified the cells as being purely of bovine origin. Results revealed that despite purchase through a commercial vendor, the cell line marketed as primary rabbit aortic endothelial cells were of bovine origin. Purity analysis found cells were misidentified rather than contaminated. Further investigation to determine the cell type was not performed. The most cost-effective and efficient methodology for confirming cell line identity was found to be CO1 DNA Barcoding performed by a commercial vendor.

Best practices in the flow cytometry of microalgae

2021 ◽  
Vol 99 (4) ◽  
pp. 359-364
Author(s):  
Dora Čertnerová ◽  
David W. Galbraith
Keyword(s):  
Flow Cytometry ◽  
Best Practices

scholarly journals International Society for Advancement of Cytometry (ISAC) flow cytometry shared resource laboratory (SRL) best practices

2016 ◽  
Vol 89 (11) ◽  
pp. 1017-1030 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lora W. Barsky ◽  
Michele Black ◽  
Matthew Cochran ◽  
Benjamin J. Daniel ◽  
Derek Davies ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Flow Cytometry ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
International Society ◽  
Shared Resource ◽  
Resource Laboratory

scholarly journals Best practices in performing flow cytometry in a regulated environment: feedback from experience within the European Bioanalysis Forum

Bioanalysis ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (16) ◽  
pp. 1253-1264 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barry van der Strate ◽  
Robin Longdin ◽  
Marie Geerlings ◽  
Nora Bachmayer ◽  
Maria Cavallin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Flow Cytometry ◽  
Best Practices

Best practices for optimization and validation of flow cytometry‐based receptor occupancy assays

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ed Hilt ◽  
Yongliang S. Sun ◽  
Thomas W. McCloskey ◽  
Steve Eck ◽  
Thomas McIntosh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Flow Cytometry ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Receptor Occupancy

Best practices for application of attachment cells to in vitro micronucleus assessment by flow cytometry

2016 ◽  
Vol 795 ◽  
pp. 51-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey C. Bemis ◽  
Steven M. Bryce ◽  
Marlies Nern ◽  
Marian Raschke ◽  
Andreas Sutter
Keyword(s):  
Flow Cytometry ◽  
Best Practices

A Survey of Speech-Language Pathologists' Approaches to Assessing Social Communication Disorders in Children

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Kristen Izaryk ◽  
Robin Edge ◽  
Dawn Lechwar
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Communication Disorders ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Speech Language Pathologists ◽  
Teacher Report ◽  
Formal Assessment ◽  
Language Sampling ◽  
Specific Assessment ◽  
Social Communication Disorders

Purpose The purpose of this article is to explore and describe the approaches and specific assessment tools that speech-language pathologists are currently using to assess social communication disorders (SCDs) in children, in relation to current best practices. Method Ninety-four speech-language pathologists completed an online survey asking them to identify which of the following approaches they use to assess children with SCD: parent/teacher report, naturalistic observation, formal assessment, language sample analysis, interviews, semistructured tasks, and peer/self-report. Participants were also asked to identify specific assessment tools they use within each approach. Results Participants most commonly assess SCDs by combining interviews, naturalistic observation, language sampling, parent/teacher report, and formal assessment. Semistructured tasks and peer/self-report tools were less frequently utilized. Several established parent/teacher report and formal assessment tools were commonly identified for assessing SCDs. Most participants use an informal approach for interviews, language sampling, and naturalistic observations in their SCD assessment process. Conclusions Generally, participants follow best practices for assessing SCDs by combining several different approaches. Some considerations for future assessment are identified, including the use of established protocols in the place of informal approaches in order to make the assessment of SCDs more systematic. Future directions for research are discussed.

Practical Resources for Provision of Services to Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Users of AAC

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-39
Author(s):  
Elena Dukhovny ◽  
E. Betsy Kelly
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Augmentative And Alternative Communication ◽  
Linguistically Diverse ◽  
Intervention Strategies ◽  
Culturally And Linguistically Diverse ◽  
Limited Resources ◽  
Flexible Systems ◽  
Alternative Communication ◽  
Practical Applications ◽  
Provision Of Services

According to the 2010 U.S. Census, over 20% of Americans speak a language other than English in the home, with Spanish, Chinese, and French being the languages most commonly spoken, aside from English. However, few augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems offer multilingual support for individuals with limited functional speech. There has been much discussion in the AAC community about best practices in AAC system design and intervention strategies, but limited resources exist to help us provide robust, flexible systems for users who speak languages other than English. We must provide services that take into consideration the unique needs of culturally and linguistically diverse users of AAC and help them reach their full communication potential. This article outlines basic guidelines for best practices in AAC design and selection, and presents practical applications of these best practices to multilingual/multicultural clients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document