Abstract
The intent of this letter is to comment on an article entitled “Suitability of a Progenitor Cell-Enriching Device for In Vitro Applications” [...]
Highlights
The intent of this letter is to comment on an article entitled “Suitability of a Progenitor
Cell-Enriching Device for In Vitro Applications” [1] recently published in your journal, as we are afraid it could lead to disorientation and confusion among the scientific community
It is of concern that the authors have not described carefully how the device works and, have not criticized that the obtained outcomes are achieved only due to the fact that the device has been used inadequately and could not work with a single cell suspension
Summary
The intent of this letter is to comment on an article entitled “Suitability of a Progenitor. Despite reading this article carefully, we have not fully understood the rationale of this paper, as the authors aimed to test a Class 2a Medical Device, whose use is only addressed to disaggregate autologous tissue sample (i.e., full thickness skin), to “evaluate the potential of the device for an in vitro cell model” by processing instead a single-cellular suspension.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
