4.8 Article

High-speed fluorescence image-enabled cell sorting

期刊

SCIENCE
卷 375, 期 6578, 页码 315-+

出版社

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/science.abj3013

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Research Council [AdG-294542, AdG-742804]
  2. German Research Foundation (DFG) [402723784]
  3. Human Frontier Science Program [CDA00045/2019]
  4. EMBL Interdisciplinary Postdoc (EIPOD) program (Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions COFUND grant) [664726]
  5. European Molecular Biology Organization [EMBO ALTF 1154-2020]
  6. Chan Zuckerberg Initiative DAF, an advised fund of the Silicon Valley Community Foundation [2020-225265]
  7. Novo Nordisk Foundation [NNF17CC0027852, NNF21CC0073729]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a high-speed image-enabled cell sorting method was established to isolate single cells with unique spatial and morphological traits. This method allows for quantitative analysis of cell morphology and localization of labeled proteins, and improves the resolution of cell cycle analysis. By combining it with CRISPR-pooled screens, comprehensive genome-wide image-based screens can be completed in a short period of time.
Fast and selective isolation of single cells with unique spatial and morphological traits remains a technical challenge. Here, we address this by establishing high-speed image-enabled cell sorting (ICS), which records multicolor fluorescence images and sorts cells based on measurements from image data at speeds up to 15,000 events per second. We show that ICS quantifies cell morphology and localization of labeled proteins and increases the resolution of cell cycle analyses by separating mitotic stages. We combine ICS with CRISPR-pooled screens to identify regulators of the nuclear factor kappa B (NF-kappa B) pathway, enabling the completion of genome-wide image-based screens in about 9 hours of run time. By assessing complex cellular phenotypes, ICS substantially expands the phenotypic space accessible to cell-sorting applications and pooled genetic screening.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据