↓ Skip to main content

Metas-Chip precisely identifies presence of micrometastasis in live biopsy samples by label free approach

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
Title
Metas-Chip precisely identifies presence of micrometastasis in live biopsy samples by label free approach
Published in
Nature Communications, December 2017
DOI 10.1038/s41467-017-02184-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohammad Saeid Nikshoar, Mohammad Ali Khayamian, Saeid Ansaryan, Hassan Sanati, Milad Gharooni, Leila Farahmand, Farshad Rezakhanloo, Keivan Majidzadeh-A, Parisa Hoseinpour, Shahrzad Dadgari, Leila Kiani-M, Mohammad Saqafi, Masoumeh Gity, Mohammad Abdolahad

Abstract

Detecting the micrometastasis is a major challenge in patients' survival. The small volume of the biopsied tissue results in limited number of histopathological samples and might reduce the rate of accurate diagnosis even by molecular technologies. We introduce a microelectronic biochip (named Metas-Chip) to detect the micrometastasis in unprocessed liquid or solid samples. It works based on the tendency of malignant cells to track single human umbilical vein endothelial cell (HUVEC)-sensing traps. Such cells detach themselves from the biopsied sample and invade the sensing traps by inducing membrane retraction and blebbing, which result in sharp changes in electrical response of the sensing elements. Metas-Chip identified the metastasis in more than 70 breast cancer patients, in less than 5 h. Moreover it detected the metastasis in lymph nodes of nine patients whom were missed by conventional pathological procedure. Multilevel IHC and real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests confirmed the diagnosis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 27%
Student > Master 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 12 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 12 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 8%
Chemistry 3 6%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 16 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 19 December 2017.
All research outputs
#18,579,736
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#44,488
of 47,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#328,660
of 440,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#1,288
of 1,377 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 47,382 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 55.9. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 440,391 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,377 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.