4.5 Article

Publishing flow cytometry data

Publisher

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajplung.00313.2009

Keywords

flow cytometric analysis

Funding

  1. American Heart Association (AHA) [0855953G, SDG 0835134]
  2. University of Colorado Comprehensive Cancer Center Flow Cytometry Core National Cancer Institute [5-P30-CA-46934-15]
  3. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIH

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Alvarez DF, Helm K, DeGregori J, Roederer M, Majka S. Publishing flow cytometry data. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol 298: L127-L130, 2010. First published November 13, 2009; doi: 10.1152/ajplung.00313.2009.-Cellular measurements by flow cytometric analysis constitute an important step toward understanding individual attributes within a population of cells. Assessing individual cells within a population by protein expression using fluorescently labeled antibodies and other fluorescent probes can identify cellular patterns. The technology for accurately identifying subtle changes in protein expression within a population of cells using a vast array of technology has resulted in controversy and questions regarding reproducibility, which can be explained at least in part by the absence of standard methods to facilitate comparison of flow cytometric data. The complexity of technological advancements and the need for improvements in biological resolution results in the generation of complex data that demands the use of minimum standards for their publication. Herein we present a summarized view for the inclusion of consistent flow cytometric experimental information as supplemental data. Four major points, experimental and sample information, data acquisition, analysis, and presentation are emphasized. Together, these guidelines will facilitate the review and publication of flow cytometry data that provide an accurate foundation for ongoing studies with this evolving technology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available