Cell isolation and separation are important techniques enabling the isolation of specific cell types from heterogeneous mixtures such as blood, tissue, or culture with minimal contamination from other cell types¹.

Cell isolation and cell separation are often used interchangeably; these terms can encompass slightly different aspects of the same fundamental process¹.

• Cell isolation: This refers to the process of separating individual living cells from a solid block of tissue or a cell suspension. It involves techniques that break down the extracellular matrix or tissue structure to release cells while ensuring their viability for further experimentation.
• Cell separation: This term typically describes the methods used to isolate specific cell types from a mixed population. It focuses on distinguishing targeted cells based on unique characteristics such as size, shape, surface markers, or density.

This versatile technology allows for precise enumeration of cells, aiding both diagnosis and treatment monitoring. These processes are essential for studying individual cell populations, understanding cellular functions, and conducting experiments in fields like immunology, cancer research, and regenerative medicine.

Principles of cell isolation

The principles of cell isolation are based on leveraging the distinct physical, chemical, and biological characteristics that differentiate target cells from non-target cells².

Key properties of isolated cells

The methods of cell isolation are based on the unique properties of the target cells, such as size, density, shape, and surface markers. The key properties used in cell isolation include:
Physical properties: Cell size, density, shape, and membrane deformability

Cell size differences enable separation methods like filtration or flow cytometry to distinguish between larger and smaller cells, such as monocytes and lymphocytes³. Variations in cell density are utilized in density gradient centrifugation, where cells settle into distinct layers based on their densities⁴. Morphological differences in cell shape, such as spherical versus elongated forms, facilitate separation when paired with imaging or deformability-based sorting techniques^5,6.
Membrane deformability enables techniques like microfluidic sorting, which distinguishes cells based on their rigidity or flexibility, as seen in cancer cells versus normal cells.

Biological properties: Surface protein expression, electric charge, and other biological markers
Surface protein expression, such as cluster of differentiation (CD) markers (eg, CD4 for T helper cells, CD8 for cytotoxic T cells, CD19 for B cells, or CD44 for breast cancer), enables targeted cell isolation using antibody-based immunomagnetic or fluorescence techniques⁷.
Unique cell surface charges, determined by membrane composition, facilitate electrophoretic or dielectrophoretic sorting to separate cells by their charge properties, exploiting specific cell characteristics for precise isolation⁸.
Unique biological markers, such as secreted molecules like pyrophosphate, further aid in cell isolation. These markers can be labeled with fluorescent dyes or probes for easier identification and separation⁹.

Positive and negative selection

Cell isolation techniques can be broadly categorized into positive and negative selection methods based on how the target cells are separated from the mixture. Each method has its advantages depending on the type of cells being isolated and the experimental requirements¹⁰.

Positive selection utilizes cell receptor antibodies to target specific cell types of interest. It may activate receptor-mediated cascades or cause receptor blockades, potentially affecting downstream cell functions. Thus, it achieves high purity of the target cells. A common application is the isolation of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) that express epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM). For instance, researchers have used positive selection to isolate CTCs from both whole blood and leukapheresis products (which are enriched in white blood cells) in cancer patients. Notably, CTC yields from leukapheresis samples were significantly higher – up to 100 times greater – than those from standard blood sample¹¹.

Negative selection removes non-target cells using antibody cocktails, enriching rather than purifying the target cells. It is designed to avoid receptor activation or inhibition caused by positive selection. Isolated cells remain unlabeled and unbound by antibodies, preserving their native state and functionality. For example, negative selection targeting specific surface markers has been used to purify human dermal microvascular endothelial cells (HDMEC) from fibroblast contamination.

Similarly, human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC) were enriched to high purity using negative selection and maintained over multiple passages. This method effectively isolates endothelial cells while minimizing contamination from other cell types¹². However, it is challenging to effectively target all non-desired cells compared to isolating a specific target population, which may result in contamination of target cells with other cell types, affecting sample purity¹⁰.

Common cell isolation techniques

Magnetic-activated cell sorting (MACS)

In MACS, target cells are tagged with magnetic beads that are coated with antibodies specific to cell surface markers. A magnetic field is then applied, which attracts the magnetically labeled target cells, separating them from the rest of the cell population. This results in a high-purity population of the target cells¹³.

Advantages:

• Adaptable and scalable for various experimental needs, whether isolating a small number of cells or processing larger volumes.
• Applicable for both positive and negative selection. In positive selection, the target cells are directly enriched, while in negative selection, unwanted cells are removed, leaving the target population behind.
• The magnetic bead labeling process is gentle and does not significantly impact cell viability.
• Recent developments combine MACS with microfluidic devices, enhancing compactness and throughput while minimizing sample loss.

Limitations:

• Requires the availability of specific antibodies.
• Cells are labeled with magnetic beads, which may alter their behavior in some cases^13,14.

Applications:

• MACS is widely used to isolate specific immune cells, such as T cells, B cells, dendritic cells, or monocytes, from blood or tissues. This is important for studying immune responses, immune therapies, and immunotherapy development.
• It is applied to separate rare populations like circulating tumor cells (CTCs) using both positive selection (eg, EpCAM or HER2 markers) and negative selection (eg, CD45-based) as well as nucleated red blood cells (nRBCs) from blood.
• Isolating stem cells by magnetic sorting is a relatively quick and efficient method for isolating stem cells from crude or concentrated samples with minimal preparation. It targets specific cell markers, ensuring reasonable accuracy, and helps maintain the viability and function of the isolated cells for further use.
• MACS is used for isolating viable sperm in fertility treatments by using assisted reproductive technology (ART), which focuses on evaluating sperm's molecular properties rather than just physical traits^14,15,16.

Fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS)

FACS is a more sophisticated technique that uses flow cytometry to sort cells based on the fluorescence of specific antibodies or markers. The cells are tagged with fluorescent antibodies that bind to cell surface markers, and the sample is passed through a laser beam. The fluorescence emitted by the labeled cells is detected, and the cells are sorted based on their fluorescence signals¹⁷.

Advantages:

• High precision and resolution in isolating rare or specific cell types.
• Allows sorting based on multiple markers simultaneously, including drop charge systems and cell-capture systems for isolating specific cells in a preparative and bacterial-free clean manner.

Limitations:

• It can potentially damage the cells while sorting
• Requires specific fluorescent markers.
• Requires expensive equipment and trained personnel.
• Time-consuming, especially with large sample sizes.

Applications:

• It is widely applied in biomedical and immunological studies for clinical analysis, cell purification, functional assays, and pathogen detection.
• Effective for discovering cell types and activities in comparative and evolutionary research.
• Isolation of cell populations based on properties like size, granularity, or enzymes, which are non-antibody based¹⁷.

Apart from the biological properties, cells can be separated depending on several physical properties, too, like size, shape, and density. Such techniques can range from density gradient centrifugation to laser capture microdissection. Here is a list of cell isolation techniques depending on the physical properties:

Density gradient centrifugation

Density gradient centrifugation is an effective method for separating and purifying cells, viruses, and subcellular components based on differences in density or size during centrifugation in a gradient medium. It is commonly used to isolate extracellular vesicles (EV) and various microorganisms from different samples, offering advantages such as high purity and compatibility with downstream applications¹⁸.

This technique is effective in studying viruses and isolating diverse cell types and cell fractions, such as erythrocytes, spermatozoa, and mitochondria, for further analysis. For example, rat liver mitochondria (RLM) can be purified using density gradients, such as the discontinuous Percoll gradient method. This technique yields functionally intact and relatively uncontaminated mitochondria suitable for biochemical studies. Isolated RLM maintains a high coupling efficiency for over 3 hours, making them ideal for polarographic measurements¹⁹.
While density gradient centrifugation is accessible and cost-effective, it lacks the scalability and automation potential of magnetic separation methods like MACS, especially in high-throughput or clinical settings.

Filtration-based separation

Filtration for cell separation is a high-throughput, label-free method. However, its specificity is limited because of the potential overlap in cell sizes, which makes it unsuitable for all types of samples³.

The filtration-based technique separates cells based on size and deformability, with larger or less deformable cells trapped in the filter while smaller or more deformable cells pass through. It is suitable for separating CTCs from blood. For example, filtration methods isolate CTCs based on size using filters with 6.5-8 µm pores. It is then evaluated through morphological criteria, immunophenotyping, or fluorescence in situ hybridization. Collected CTCs can also be cultured in vitro for further analysis²⁰.

This method offers advantages such as scalability for high throughput and simple design, but challenges remain, such as potential cell damage during the filtration process and clogging of the filter.
Recent innovations, like a 3D filtration system and ratchet structures with oscillatory flow, have improved cell integrity and prevented clogging, allowing for efficient and continuous filtration with minimal degradation³.

Microfluidic cell sorting

Microfluidics is a powerful technology offering precise fluid control, low sample consumption, and device miniaturization. It has applications in cancer research, microbiology, single-cell analysis, and drug discovery. For example, a study shows a microfluidic device processing whole blood by simultaneously extracting plasma and red blood cells. It can trap ~1,800 white blood cells in 20 minutes. With minimal dilution (0.76x) and low hemolysis, it requires only 6 μL of blood, making it ideal for point-of-care diagnostics²¹.

Cell sorting using microfluidic chips relies on methods such as cell-affinity chromatography, which provides high specificity and sensitivity by leveraging antigen-antibody interactions to isolate target cells.
With advances in materials and integration capabilities, microfluidics supports DNA sequencing, protein analysis, and intracellular protein measurement, enabling scalable, high-throughput, and low-volume analyses across a range of research areas like genomics, neurobiology, and environmental microbiology²².

Buoyancy-activated cell sorting (BACS)

BACS is a novel cell isolation method that uses biotinylated albumin microbubbles (biotin-MBs) conjugated with antibodies. It is used for isolating target cells from complex mixtures, such as blood or bone marrow aspirates, by using glass microbubbles labeled with target-specific antibodies²³.
These microbubbles, when mixed with the sample, bind to the target cells and float to the surface due to their buoyancy, allowing for spontaneous separation. For example, a study used BACS to isolate and activate T cells by selecting CD3+ cells and co-stimulating them with anti-CD28-bound microbubbles. The buoyant microbubbles minimize cell exhaustion, promoting efficient expansion with sustained proliferative phenotypes24. Several assay kits, like the human B cell isolation kit, can be used to negatively select the cells for isolation using the BACS technique.
This technique offers a cost-effective and stable alternative to traditional cell sorting methods like FACS and MACS, with the added advantage of high sorting efficiency for target cells such as CD4-positive cells.

Laser capture microdissection (LCM)

LCM is a precise, rapid method for isolating pure cell populations or single cells from solid tissue samples, enabling downstream molecular analyses such as PCR, microarrays, and proteomics²². For example, a study analyzed tumor progression in a triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patient by sequencing DNA and RNA from 97 pathologist-defined cell clusters isolated via laser capture microdissection. Clonality and phylogenetic analysis revealed three distinct evolutionary pathways, each with unique mRNA signatures and survival outcomes²⁵.
LCM uses infrared or ultraviolet laser systems to selectively capture target cells without contaminating or destroying adjacent tissue, preserving both cellular morphology and the remaining tissue for further study.
Although LCM excels in precision and versatility, its limitations include the need for trained personnel to identify cells visually, challenges from the lack of a cover slip during microdissection, and potential technical artifacts such as UV-induced DNA or RNA damage.

Manual picking/ micromanipulation

Manual cell picking or micromanipulation is used for isolating single cells using micromanipulators that combine an inverted microscope and movable micro-pipettes²². For example, single neurons from brain tissue slices are isolated using micromanipulators by descending recording pipettes to the region of interest for electrophysiological studies^26,27.
Unlike LCM, which isolates fixed tissue cells, micromanipulation is effective for live culture or embryo cells. It can be used in electrophysiology labs for collecting cellular material after patch-clamp recordings.
However, this technique has limited throughput and requires skilled professionals, making it less suitable for detecting complex changes in large sample populations.

Comparison of cell isolation techniques

Different techniques for the isolation of cells offer distinct advantages and limitations, making the choice of method highly dependent on the research objective. Understanding the key cell isolation techniques helps in choosing the proper method for specific applications.

MACS vs. FACS

Here is a comparative study of MACS and FACS²⁸.

Magnetic separation vs. density gradient centrifugation

Efficient cell sorting is essential for isolating subpopulations, but selecting appropriate methods, such as magnetic separation and density gradient centrifugation, depends on the requirements and samples used^13,18,29,30.

Choosing the right method for specific applications

Choosing the right cell isolation method is important for achieving specific research or clinical objectives. The selection process involves evaluating several factors related to the target cells, the desired outcomes, and the characteristics of various isolation techniques^31,32.

Target cell characteristics:

• Surface markers: Identify specific surface antigens present on the target cells to determine suitable antibody-based methods (eg, FACS, MACS).
• Size and density: Use methods like density gradient centrifugation or filtration for cells that differ significantly in size or density from other cell types.

Purity and yield requirements:

• High purity needs: If high purity is vital, positive selection methods (like FACS or MACS) are preferred as they directly target the desired cells.
• Yield considerations: Assess whether the method can provide sufficient yield without compromising cell viability.

Cell viability and stress tolerance:

• Mechanical and chemical stress: Evaluate how much stress the target cells can endure during isolation. Techniques like BACS are gentler compared to MACS, which may affect cell physiology due to strong magnetic fields.

Downstream applications:

• Specific requirements: Some methods may leave residual antibodies that could interfere with subsequent applications.
• Functional assays: If functional assays are planned, preserving the native state of cells is essential, which may favor negative selection methods.

Contamination risks:

• Acceptable contamination levels: Determine how critical contamination is for a particular application. Positive selection generally results in lower contamination compared to negative selection.

Single-cell isolation techniques

Single-cell isolation tools are utilized in genomics, transcriptomics, and proteomics, enabled by next-generation sequencing (NGS) and whole-genome/transcriptome amplification (WGA/WTA) technologies. These methods use high-throughput, multiparameter approaches to capture cell-to-cell variability and heterogeneity.

For example, exome sequencing of single cells from renal carcinomas revealed that only 31–37% of genetic lesions are shared among all tumor cells. Studying tumors at a single-cell level provides deeper insights into their development, metastasis, and drug response. PIK3CA mutations were found in both primary and metastatic tumors, but their periodic variation in single circulating and disseminated tumor cells suggests differences in drug efficacy22.

Importance of single-cell isolation

Single-cell isolation has revolutionized cancer, neuroscience, and stem cell research by enabling detailed analysis of cellular heterogeneity and unique subpopulations. It is essential for studying cellular heterogeneity, providing insights into chromosomal variations, gene expression, and protein interactions at the individual cell level.

• Cancer: It reveals intra-tumor heterogeneity and identifies rare circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and disseminated tumor cells (DTCs), which are important for understanding metastasis and drug resistance. For example, analysis of copy number variation in single tumor cells helps in studying population structure and tumor evolution in a breast tumor. This helps in understanding tumor evolution and genetic tumor structure³³.
• Neuroscience: It uncovers genomic variations in neurons and isolates specific neuronal subtypes, providing insights into brain complexity and neuropsychiatric diseases. For example, MACS technology was used to isolate immature neuronal cells from embryonic zebrafish using PSA-NCAM-conjugated microbeads in a semi-automated process. It was also applied to isolate oligodendroglial progenitor cells from the rat embryonic spinal cord²².
• Stem cell: It explores diverse stem cell populations and their roles in tissue repair, cancer resistance, and the development of therapy. For example, analysis of “stemness” genes revealed continuous stemness-related expression states in tumor cells, highlighting the complexity of cancer stem cell populations. Since CSCs are more resistant to chemo- and radiotherapy, understanding their resistance mechanisms could help develop more effective cancer treatments²².

Methods for single-cell isolation

• Laser microdissection is ideal for isolating cells from tissue sections while retaining spatial context³⁴.
• Laser-induced forward transfer (LIFT) is a non-contact method that uses laser pulses to transfer single cells, minimizing contamination, while recent advancements improve precision and cell viability³⁵.
• A modular single-cell pipette (mSCP) enables rapid and efficient isolation of single cells, particularly for RNA sequencing³⁶.

Specialized cell isolation applications

Specialized cell isolation refers to advanced techniques designed to isolate specific cell types or subpopulations based on unique characteristics, such as surface markers, functional properties, or molecular profiles. These methods are tailored for research or clinical applications where precision and high purity are essential.

T cell isolation

T cells are an important component of the immune system, involved in recognizing and attacking foreign pathogens, infected cells, and cancer cells. Isolating T cells from mixed populations, such as whole blood or tissue samples, is vital for research in immunology, cancer immunotherapy, and vaccine development T cells³⁷.
T cell isolation can be achieved using techniques like MACS or FACS. These methods typically rely on selecting surface markers like CD3, CD4, and CD8 (for helper and cytotoxic T cells, respectively). T cell subsets are identified through the expression of surface molecules, transcription factors, and cytokine production, providing insights into differentiation, polarization, and function^38,39.
T cells can be isolated using indirect panning, where cells are incubated with specific antibodies and separated based on adherence to coated dishes. Immunopanning with microarrays and antibody-coated slides allows positive and negative selection of multiple T cell subsets simultaneously. Antibody/complement-mediated cytotoxicity is a negative-selection method that depletes specific T cell subpopulations through lysis, resulting in the loss of targeted cells⁴⁰.

Natural killer (NK) cell isolation

NK cells are innate immune cells responsible for killing virus-infected and tumor cells without prior sensitization. Their isolation is important for research in cancer immunotherapy and autoimmune diseases, having the potential to be used in cell-based therapies for cancer treatment⁴¹.
The isolation of NK cells is typically done using positive selection methods targeting CD56, CD16, or other NK-specific markers using MACS or FACS. NK cell isolation can also be performed by negative selection, where unwanted cell types like T cells or B cells are depleted from the sample, enriching the NK cell population. This isolation is essential for therapies involving NK cell infusion or expansion to enhance anti-tumor responses^42,43,44.

Stem cell isolation

Stem cell isolation is an important process in regenerative medicine and research, enabling scientists to obtain specific stem cell populations for various applications. The techniques employed for isolating stem cells vary based on the source of the stem cells and their unique characteristics⁴⁵.

• Embryonic stem cells (ESCs) are isolated from the inner cells of blastocysts.
• Adult stem cells (ASCs) are isolated from the adipose tissues of an adult organism.
• Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) are isolated from somatic cells, which are then cultured in vitro to inculcate properties like ESCs.

Stem cell isolation can be performed using methods that target cell surface markers, such as CD34 for hematopoietic stem cells or SSEA-1 and TRA-1-60 for pluripotent stem cells^46,47.
Techniques like MACS, FACS, and density gradient centrifugation are employed to isolate pure populations of stem cells for culture, expansion, or transplantation. A common challenge in stem cell isolation is the need to maintain cell viability and multipotency, which requires optimized protocols to minimize stress and preserve their regenerative potential⁴⁸.

Circulating tumor cell (CTC) isolation

CTCs are cancer cells that have detached from the primary tumor and entered the bloodstream, making them a key target for early cancer diagnosis and monitoring of metastasis.
Isolating CTCs from whole blood or plasma is important for non-invasive cancer diagnostics and personalized therapy. However, CTC isolation techniques must balance sensitivity to capture rare and heterogeneous CTC with specificity to effectively enrich against blood cells. The methods should also be repeatable, reliable, rapid, cost-effective, and capable of processing clinically⁴⁹.

Rare cell populations

Rare cells are less common cells in the blood. Isolating rare cell populations, such as stem cells in tissue samples, circulating fetal cells, or immune cell subtypes, is important in a variety of biological and clinical research fields³.

Rare cells are typically isolated using highly specific methods like MACS, FACS, or laser capture microdissection. These methods often rely on identifying unique surface markers or physical properties of rare cell types, such as size, density, or biological markers²².

Similarly, in cancer research, isolating rare tumor subpopulations or metastasis-driving cells requires advanced sorting technologies that can efficiently capture these cells without contamination from more abundant cell types. Rare cell isolation is often challenging due to the low frequency of target cells in the sample, which requires highly sensitive and specific sorting protocols^50,51.

Emerging trends in cell isolation

Regenerative treatments using cell separation have traditionally focused on blood and bone marrow. Still, advances in stem cell therapy and tissue engineering now enable therapies using cells from other tissues like adipose and intestine⁵².
Highly selective cell separation methods are improving repair quality and clinical outcomes, driving increased adoption in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. This growing demand spans a range of disciplines, including biochemistry, electrical engineering, physics, and materials science, reflecting the expanding applications of cell separation technologies⁵².

Innovations in cell isolation technologies

Advancing technologies like microfluidic chip technologies focus on their performance in terms of throughput, efficiency, activity, and space. High-activity microchamber chips utilize single-cell printing and can isolate and culture cells while allowing multiplexed analysis, making them useful for studying cell function and immune monitoring⁵³.

Double-layer valve chips enable precise control of cell isolation and offer high-efficiency single-cell separation, which has applications in automated analysis and dynamic cellular studies, such as immune response and cell aging.
Microfluidic technologies are becoming increasingly important for efficient cell isolation, especially for circulating tumor cells and stem cells, by offering precise control over cell environments. The development of 3D tumor cultures from primary tumor cells is advancing personalized medicine by enabling individualized drug sensitivity testing54.

Microwell chips are ideal for electrical detection as they keep single cells in a fixed position for analysis. They have been used to isolate and screen MCF7 tumor cells in whole blood. Target cells can be transferred to a micro-reaction chamber for lysis and DNA amplification analysis^53,54.
Researchers have created a high-throughput platform that combines microfluidics and machine learning to analyze secretory biomarkers in live single cells. Using microchamber chips with graphene oxide quantum dots (GOQDs), the system maintains high cell viability and precisely classifies tumor cells. This innovation holds significant potential for cancer research and biomedical applications⁵³.

Hydrogel engineering and bioprinting technologies are enabling the creation of personalized tissue models, which are important for regenerative medicine and disease modeling. For example, advances in cell isolation will enhance personalized regenerative therapies, including heart tissue repair and CRISPR-based genetic corrections56. Ethical guidelines must be considered when isolating patient-derived cells to ensure compliance with regulations and maintain patient safety⁵⁵.

Cell isolation can also be used for iPSC-driven personalized therapies. For example, iPSCs require isolating patient-specific somatic cells for reprogramming, enabling the development of disease-specific cell lines for drug testing and toxicity assessment^55,56. Automation has become a key factor in improving the efficiency and consistency of cell isolation workflows. The initial cost of the automated systems may be higher, but it can improve the process of cell isolation by removing manual labor and improving the quality of the samples.
Computer vision-based robots are developed to isolate individual cells from a thin layer of suspension for subsequent analysis, such as DNA/RNA sequencing. With high precision in positioning, adaptive cell targeting, and minimal sample preparation, the robot can retrieve rare cells and handle various tissue types, isolating cells at speeds of 2–3 cells per minute57.
A combination of dielectrophoresis and computer vision is used to control single-cell trajectories in microfluidic devices for precise and automated selection, isolation, and analysis. Additionally, various microfluidic platforms like centrifugal systems for isolating circulating tumor cells (CTCs) from blood and hydrogel-based systems for isolating cell aggregates, are developed to enhance cell isolation efficiency and specificity^57,58.

Challenges in cell isolation and separation

Technical challenges

Cell isolation and separation face significant technical challenges, including achieving specificity, purity, and viability of target cells while avoiding contamination and damage during processing. Isolating endogenous rare cells, like hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) and circulating endothelial cells (CECs), is particularly complex due to sensitivity limitations⁵¹.

Stem cell isolation is particularly challenging because undifferentiated cells must be removed to prevent teratoma formation after implantation. The lack of precise biomarkers for specific target cell types further complicates the separation process and makes evaluating the purity of the isolated cells difficult⁵⁹.
Standardizing protocols and scaling techniques for clinical applications further complicate their reliability and widespread use⁶⁰.

Cost and time considerations
The high cost and time demand of cell isolation and separation hinder their widespread use, especially in resource-limited settings. Techniques like FACS and MACS require expensive equipment, consumables, and specialized training, further increasing financial and operational burdens. However, MACS is cost-effective for large-scale cell sorting28.

Lengthy processing times can delay treatments and compromise cell viability, emphasizing the need for more efficient and affordable solutions. For example – isolation of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) through density gradient centrifugation is time-intensive. Delays in processing, sometimes up to 48 hours, may occur when samples are taken outside standard lab hours⁶¹.

Regulatory and ethical considerations

Regulatory and ethical challenges in cell isolation include stringent validation requirements from agencies like the FDA, compliance with good manufacturing practice (GMP) standards, and the associated costs and complexities⁶².
Cell isolation from embryonic stem cells (ESCs) leads to the destruction of the embryos, raising serious ethical concerns. Thus, following proper regulatory protocols can help tackle such situations⁶³.
Ethical concerns arise around human cell sourcing, such as informed consent, donor privacy, and the use of embryonic or stem cells, complicating research efforts. Clear guidelines are needed to address debates over technologies, ensuring scientific progress aligns with societal and regulatory expectations^63,64.

Best practices for cell isolation

Optimizing protocols is important for ensuring that cell isolation methods are efficient, reproducible, and yield high-quality results. By considering various factors such as reagent selection, incubation times, and equipment calibration, researchers can significantly improve the accuracy and effectiveness of their cell isolation processes⁶⁵.

Protocol optimization

The process of optimization ensures the efficiency, reproducibility, and quality of cell isolation processes. This involves carefully selecting reagents, adjusting incubation times, and calibrating equipment to suit specific experimental needs.
Primary cell lines are essential for cancer research but are challenging to obtain and maintain, making established cell lines more common⁶⁶.
For enzymatic dissociation, choosing the appropriate enzyme concentration and digestion duration can improve cell viability and yield while minimizing damage to cells. Additionally, proper sample handling techniques, such as maintaining sterility and using appropriate buffers, are important for preventing contamination and ensuring the integrity of isolated cells⁶⁷.

FAQs

How does magnetic cell separation work?

Magnetic cell separation uses magnetic beads coated with antibodies that bind to specific cell surface markers. When the sample is exposed to a magnetic field, cells bound to the beads are attracted to the magnet, allowing separation from other cells. This method is widely used for isolating target cells, such as immune cells, with high specificity and minimal contamination. It uses both positive selections, where target cells are captured, and adverse selection, where unwanted cells are removed.

What are the advantages of using immunomagnetic cell separation?

Immunomagnetic cell separation offers high specificity, enabling the isolation of target cells based on surface markers with minimal contamination. It is a rapid, scalable, and easy-to-use technique that preserves cell viability and function. Additionally, it allows for the isolation of rare cell populations, making it ideal for applications in research and clinical therapies.

How does fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) differ from other cell isolation methods?

Fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) stands out from other cell isolation methods due to its ability to sort cells based on specific fluorescent markers attached to surface proteins, allowing for detailed analysis of multiple cell characteristics simultaneously. Unlike other methods, FACS offers high precision and can handle complex mixtures of cells, sorting them at a rapid pace. However, it does require specialized equipment and prior labeling of cells, which can add both cost and preparation time.

What are the challenges in isolating T cells and NK cells?

Isolating T cells and NK cells can be challenging due to their similar surface markers and the need for high specificity in sorting methods. Additionally, the low abundance of these cells in certain samples, such as blood, makes their isolation more difficult without contamination from other cell types. Techniques like magnetic sorting and flow cytometry are effective but require careful optimization to ensure high purity and cell viability.

References

1. Witek, M.A., Freed, I.M., Soper, S.A.  et al.  Cell separations and sorting.  Anal. Chem.  92, 105–131 (2019).
2. Fernandes, T.G., Diogo, M.M., Joaquim, M.  et al.  Stem cell separation.  Elsevier eBooks  115, 115–141 (2013).
3. Chen, Y., Li, P., Huang, P.H.  et al.  Rare cell isolation and analysis in microfluidics.  Lab Chip  14, 626 (2014).
4. Rosado, M., Silva, R., Bexiga, M.G.  et al.  Advances in biomarker detection: Alternative approaches for blood-based biomarker detection.  Sci. Direct  92, 141–199 (2019).
5. McAtee, P.A., Hallett, I.C., Johnston, J.W.  et al.  A rapid method of fruit cell isolation for cell size and shape measurements.  Plant Methods  5, (2009).
6. Choi, G., Nouri, R., Zarzar, L.  et al.  Microfluidic deformability-activated sorting of single particles.  Microsyst. Nanoeng.  6, (2020).
7. Oh, D.Y. & Fong, L. Cytotoxic CD4+ T cells in cancer: Expanding the immune effector toolbox.  Immunity  54, 2701–2711 (2021).
8. Giduthuri, A.T., Theodossiou, S.K., Schiele, N.R.  et al.  Dielectrophoresis as a tool for electrophysiological characterization of stem cells.  Biophys. Rev.  1, (2020).
9. Wang, X., Ding, Q., Groleau, R.R.  et al.  Fluorescent probes for disease diagnosis.  Chem. Rev.  (2024).
10. Beliakova‐Bethell, N., Massanella, M., White, C.  et al.  The effect of cell subset isolation method on gene expression in leukocytes.  Cytometry A  85, 94–104 (2013).
11. Edd, J.F., Mishra, A., Smith, K.C.  et al.  Isolation of circulating tumor cells.  iScience  25, 104696 (2022).
12. Starzonek, C., Mhamdi-Ghodbani, M., Henning, S.  et al.  Enrichment of human dermal stem cells from primary cell cultures through the elimination of fibroblasts.  Cells  12, 949 (2023).
13. Laghmouchi, A., Hoogstraten, C., Falkenburg, J.H.F.  et al.  Long-term in vitro persistence of magnetic properties after magnetic bead-based cell separation of T cells.  Scand. J. Immunol.  92, e12924 (2020).
14. Antfolk, M. & Laurell, T. Continuous flow microfluidic separation and processing of rare cells and bioparticles found in blood – A review.  Anal. Chim. Acta  965, 9–35 (2017).
15. Shen, M.J., Olsthoorn, R.C.L., Zeng, Y.  et al.  Magnetic-activated cell sorting using coiled-coil peptides: An alternative strategy for isolating cells with high efficiency and specificity.  ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces  13, 11621–11630 (2021).
16. Zhang, X., Chao, S., Ye, N.  et al.  Emerging trends in sperm selection: Enhancing success rates in assisted reproduction.  Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol.  22, (2024).
17. Basu, S., Campbell, H.M., Dittel, B.N.  et al.  Purification of specific cell population by fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS).  J. Vis. Exp.  41, (2010).
18. Carnino, J.M. & Lee, H. Extracellular vesicles in respiratory disease.  Sci. Direct  108, 105–127 (2022).
19. Liao, P.C., Bergamini, C., Fato, R.  et al.  Isolation of mitochondria from cells and tissues.  Methods Cell Biol.  155, 3–31 (2020).
20. Dolfus, C., Piton, N., Toure, E.  et al.  Circulating tumor cell isolation: The assets of filtration methods with polycarbonate track-etched filters.  PubMed  27, 479–487 (2015).
21. Kuan, D.H., Wu, C.C., Su, W.Y.  et al.  A microfluidic device for simultaneous extraction of plasma, red blood cells, and on-chip white blood cell trapping.  Sci. Rep.  8, (2018).
22. Hu, P., Zhang, W., Xin, H.  et al.  Single cell isolation and analysis.  Front. Cell Dev. Biol.  4, (2016).
23. Liou, Y.R., Wang, Y.H., Lee, C.Y.  et al.  Buoyancy-activated cell sorting using targeted biotinylated albumin microbubbles.  PLoS ONE  10, e0125036 (2015).
24. Snow, T., Roussey, J., Wegner, C.  et al.  Flotation-based T cell isolation, activation, and expansion from human peripheral blood mononuclear cell samples using microbubbles.  J. Vis. Exp.  190, (2022).
25. Zhu, Z., Wang, W., Lin, F.  et al.  Genome profiles of pathologist-defined cell clusters by multiregional LCM and G&T-seq in one triple-negative breast cancer patient.  Cell Rep. Med.  2, 100404 (2021).
26. Abcam. Brain slice electrophysiology video protocol. Abcam.
27. Peng, Y., Mittermaier, F.X., Planert, H.  et al.  High-throughput microcircuit analysis of individual human brains through next-generation multineuron patch-clamp.  eLife  8, (2019).
28. Shen, M.J., Olsthoorn, R.C.L., Zeng, Y.  et al.  Magnetic-activated cell sorting using coiled-coil peptides: An alternative strategy for isolating cells with high efficiency and specificity.  ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces  13, 11621–11630 (2021).
29. Sutermaster, B.A. & Darling, E.M. Considerations for high-yield, high-throughput cell enrichment: fluorescence versus magnetic sorting.  Sci. Rep.  9, (2019).
30. Schwaminger, S.P., Fraga-García, P., Eigenfeld, M.  et al.  Magnetic separation in bioprocessing beyond the analytical scale: From biotechnology to the food industry.  Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.  7, (2019).
31. Prasad, M., Kumar, R., Ghosh, M.  et al.  Single-cell proteomics: Technology and applications.  Elsevier eBooks  283, 283–318 (2019).
32. Mederacke, I., Dapito, D.H., Affò, S.  et al.  High-yield and high-purity isolation of hepatic stellate cells from normal and fibrotic mouse livers.  Nat. Protoc.  10, 305–315 (2015).
33. Sato, F., Saji, S. & Toi, M. Genomic tumor evolution of breast cancer.  Breast Cancer  23, 4–11 (2016).
34. Brasko, C., Smith, K., Molnar, C.  et al.  Intelligent image-based in situ single-cell isolation.  Nat. Commun.  9, (2018).
35. Deng, Y., Renaud, P., Guo, Z.  et al.  Single cell isolation process with laser induced forward transfer.  J. Biol. Eng.  11, (2017).
36. Zhang, K., Gao, M., Chong, Z.  et al.  Single-cell isolation by a modular single-cell pipette for RNA-sequencing.  Lab Chip  16, 4742–4748 (2016).
37. Zamora, A.E., Crawford, J.C. & Thomas, P.G. Hitting the target: How T cells detect and eliminate tumors.  J. Immunol.  200, 392–399 (2018).
38. Fritsche, E., Volk, H.D., Reinke, P.  et al.  Toward an optimized process for clinical manufacturing of CAR-Treg cell therapy.  Trends Biotechnol.  38, 1099–112 (2020).
39. Cossarizza, A., Chang, H., Radbruch, A.  et al.  Guidelines for the use of flow cytometry and cell sorting in immunological studies (third edition).  Eur. J. Immunol.  51, 2708–3145 (2021).
40. Fuss, I.J. Purification of T cell populations.  Curr. Protoc. Immunol.  128, (2020).
41. Brandstadter, J.D. & Yang, Y. Natural killer cell responses to viral infection.  J. Innate Immun.  3, 274–279 (2011).
42. Forconi, C.S., Oduor, C.I., Oluoch, P.O.  et al.  A new hope for CD56⁻CD16⁺ NK cells as unconventional cytotoxic mediators: An adaptation to chronic diseases.  Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol.  10, (2020).
43. Cell Press. STAR Protocols.  Cell.com  (2025).
44. Page, A., Chuvin, N., Valladeau-Guilemond, J.  et al.  Development of NK cell-based cancer immunotherapies through receptor engineering.  Cell. Mol. Immunol.  21, 315–331 (2024).
45. Zakrzewski, W., Dobrzyński, M., Szymonowicz, M.  et al.  Stem cells: Past, present, and future.  Stem Cell Res. Ther.  10, (2019).
46. Sonoda, Y. Human CD34-negative hematopoietic stem cells: The current understanding of their biological nature.  Exp. Hematol.  96, 13–26 (2021).
47. Fong, C.Y., Peh, G.S.L., Gauthaman, K.  et al.  Separation of SSEA-4 and TRA-1–60 labelled undifferentiated human embryonic stem cells from a heterogeneous cell population using magnetic-activated cell sorting (MACS) and fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS).  Stem Cell Rev. Rep.  5, 72–80 (2009).
48. Rai, N., Singh, A.K., Singh, S.K.  et al.  Recent technological advancements in stem cell research for targeted therapeutics.  Drug Deliv. Transl. Res.  10, 1147–1169 (2020).
49. Harouaka, R., Kang, Z., Zheng, S.Y.  et al.  Circulating tumor cells: Advances in isolation and analysis, and challenges for clinical applications.  Pharmacol. Ther.  141, 209–221 (2014).
50. Deng, Z., Wu, S., Wang, Y.  et al.  Circulating tumor cell isolation for cancer diagnosis and prognosis.  eBioMedicine  83, 104237 (2022).
51. Zborowski, M. & Chalmers, J.J. Rare cell separation and analysis by magnetic sorting.  Anal. Chem.  83, 8050–8056 (2011).
52. Tomlinson, M.J., Tomlinson, S., Yang, X.B.  et al.  Cell separation: Terminology and practical considerations.  J. Tissue Eng.  4, 204173141247269 (2012).
53. Wang, C., Qiu, J., Liu, M.  et al.  Microfluidic biochips for single‐cell isolation and single‐cell analysis of multiomics and exosomes.  Adv. Sci.  11, (2024).
54. Andrew, L., Grundy, T.E., Fang, G.  et al.  Advancements in 3D cell culture systems for personalizing anti-cancer therapies.  Adv. Sci.  11, (2021).
55. Tayler, I.M. & Stowers, R.S.  et al.  Engineering hydrogels for personalized disease modeling and regenerative medicine.  Acta Biomater.  132, 4–22 (2021).
56. Lei, H. Stem cells and the future of personalized medicine.  Stem Cell Res. Regen. Med.  7, 265–266 (2024).
57. Ungai-Salánki, R., Gerecsei, T., Fürjes, P.  et al.  Automated single cell isolation from suspension with computer vision.  Sci. Rep.  6, (2016).
58. Park, J.M., Kim, M.S., Moon, H.S.  et al.  Fully automated circulating tumor cell isolation platform with large-volume capacity based on lab-on-a-disc.  Anal. Chem.  86, 3735–3742 (2014).
59. Bacon, K., Lavoie, A., Rao, B.M.  et al.  Past, present, and future of affinity-based cell separation technologies.  Acta Biomater.  112, 29–51 (2020).
60. Gandham, S., Su, X., Wood, J.  et al.  Technologies and standardization in research on extracellular vesicles.  Trends Biotechnol.  38, 1066–1098 (2020).
61. Shen, M.J., Olsthoorn, R.C.L., Zeng, Y.  et al.  Magnetic-activated cell sorting using coiled-coil peptides: An alternative strategy for isolating cells with high efficiency and specificity.  ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces  13, 11621–11630 (2021).
62. FDA. Facts about the Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP).  FDA  (2024).
63. Volarevic, V., Markovic, B.S., Gazdic, M.  et al.  Ethical and safety issues of stem cell-based therapy.  Int. J. Med. Sci.  15, 36–45 (2018).
64. Iltis, A.S., Koster, G., Reeves, E.  et al.  Ethical, legal, regulatory, and policy issues concerning embryoids: A systematic review of the literature.  Stem Cell Res. Ther.  14, 209 (2023).
65. Laskowski, T.J., Hazen, A.L., Collazo, R.S.  et al.  Rigor and reproducibility of cytometry practices for immuno‐oncology: A multifaceted challenge.  Cytometry A  97, 116–125 (2019).
66. Piwocka, O., Musielak, M., Ampuła, K.  et al.  Navigating challenges: Optimising methods for primary cell culture isolation.  Cancer Cell Int.  24, (2024).
67. McCarthy, R.C., Breite, A.G., Green, M.L.  et al.  Tissue dissociation enzymes for isolating human islets for transplantation: Factors to consider in setting enzyme acceptance criteria.  Transplantation  91, 137–145 (2011).