Table 1 Comparison of current methods for single cell isolation
Method | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
Fluorescence-activated cell sorting | High throughput | High cost |
| Â | Single cell resolution | Specialized technical expertise needed |
| Â | Fluorescence-compatible | Suspended cells only |
| Â | Specific cell isolation | No cell-cell interaction capability |
| Â | Live cell compatible | Variable performance |
Laser capture microdissection | Single cell resolution | Low throughput |
| Â | Fluorescence-compatible | High cost |
| Â | Specific cell isolation | Â |
| Â | Live cell compatible | Â |
Laser capture microdissection | Specific cell isolation | Specialized technical expertise needed |
| Â | Compatible with tissue samples | Infrequently compatible with live cells |
| Â | Capable of cell-cell interaction studies | Potential neighbouring cell contamination |
| Â | Â | Need to identify cell of interest |
| Â | Â | Adhered cells only |
| Â | Â | Variable performance |
Microcapillary aspiration | Single cell resolution | Low throughput |
| Â | Fluorescence-compatible | High cost |
| Â | Live cell compatible | Necessary technical expertise |
| Â | Capable of cell-cell interaction studies | Suspended cells only |
| Â | Â | Variable performance |
Microfluidics | Variable throughput | Specialized technical expertise needed |
| Â | Variable cost | Generally specialized per experiment |
| Â | Single cell resolution | Random cell isolation |
| Â | Fluorescence-compatible | Variable performance |
| Â | Live cell compatible | Â |
| Â | Adherent or suspended cells | Â |
| Â | Capable of cell-cell interaction studies | Â |
Terasaki plate and dilution | Low cost | Mid to low throughput |
| Â | Low technical complexity | Random cell selection |
| Â | Single cell resolution | Â |
| Â | Fluorescence-compatible | Â |
| Â | Live cell compatible | Â |
| Â | Adherent or suspended cells | Â |
| Â | Capable of cell-cell interaction studies | Â |
| Â | Consistent performance | Â |