4.2 Article

A flow cytometric protocol for enumeration of endothelial progenitor cells and monocyte subsets in human blood

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGICAL METHODS
卷 381, 期 1-2, 页码 9-13

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jim.2012.04.003

关键词

Hematopoietic stem cells; Leukocytes; Endothelium; Cellular biomarker

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [FOR809, HR 18/1-1]
  2. August-Lenz-Stiftung

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Accumulating evidence intensively advises circulating endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) and monocyte subsets as surrogate cellular biomarkers in cardiovascular and cancer disease. However, a general standard on their quantification is still elusive, thus precluding a routine monitoring and comparative interpretation of clinical studies. Objective: We intend to develop an advanced and express flow cytometric protocol for proper ex vivo quantification of monocyte subsets and EPCs in human blood. Methods: We employ now lyse/no-wash procedure and bead-based determination of absolute cell counts. We use three-color antibody panels at appropriate compensation. Analysis of rare events and low antigen expression in the EPC experiment is strengthening by sequential gating with exclusion of dead cells, as well as by matching high-intensity fluorochromes to low-density markers and by implementing the fluorescence-minus-one control. Results: Analysis of peripheral blood of ten healthy donors revealed median (IQR) value of 1.88 (1.35-2.85) viable CD45(dim)CD34(+)VEGFR2(+) EPCs per microliter. Analysis of monocytes revealed 329.5 (264.5-374.8), 16.0 (8.0-22.2) and 26.5 (19.8-36.3) cells per microliter for classical CD14(++(high))CD16(-), intermediate CD14(++)CD16(+(mid)) and non-classical CD14(+(low)) CD16(++) monocytes. Conclusion: Our current protocol provides quantitative information under a simple gating logic while using commonly accepted fluorochromes. This assay is therefore highly adapted for routine use. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据