Combined Boyden-Flow Cytometry Assay Improves Quantification and Provides Phenotypification of Leukocyte Chemotaxis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chemotaxis has been studied by classical methods that measure chemotactic and random motility responses in vitro, but these methods do not evaluate the total number and phenotype of migrating leukocytes simultaneously. Our objective was to develop and validate a novel assay, combined Boyden-flow cytometry chemotaxis assay (CBFCA), for simultaneous quantification and phenotypification of migrating leukocytes. CBFCA exhibited several important advantages in comparison to the classic Boyden chemotaxis assay (CBCA): 1) improved precision (intra-assay coefficients of variation (CVs): CBFCA-4.7 and 4.8% vs. CBCA-30.1 and 17.3%; inter-observer CVs: CBFCA-3.6% vs. CBCA 30.1%); 2) increased recovery of cells, which increased assay to provide increased sensitivity; 3) high specificity for determining the phenotype of migrating/attracted leukocytes; and 4) reduced performance time (CBFCA 120 min vs. CBCA 265 min). Other advantages of CBFCA are: 5) robustness, 6) linearity, 7) eliminated requirement for albumin and, importantly, 8) enabled recovery of migrating leukocytes for subsequent studies. This latter feature is of great benefit in the study of migrating leukocyte subsets. We conclude that the CBFCA is a novel and improved technique for experiments focused on understanding leukocyte trafficking during the inflammatory response.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".