4.2 Article

An optimized multi-parameter flow cytometry protocol for human T regulatory cell analysis on fresh and viably frozen cells, correlation with epigenetic analysis, and comparison of cord and adult blood

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGICAL METHODS
卷 387, 期 1-2, 页码 81-88

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jim.2012.09.014

关键词

T regulatory cell; Demethylation; Flow cytometry; Foxp3; Cord blood; Epigenetics

资金

  1. Midwest Athletes Against Childhood Cancer Fund
  2. University of Wisconsin Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, through an NCRR/NIH Clinical and Translational Science Award [1UL1RR025011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multi-parameter flow cytometry analysis of T regulatory (Treg) cells is a widely used approach in basic and translational research studies. This approach has been complicated by a lack of specific markers for Treg cells and lack of uniformity in the quantification of Treg cells. Given the central role of Treg cells in the inception and perpetuation of diverse immune responses as well as its target as a therapeutic, it is imperative to have established methodologies for Treg cell analysis that are robust and usable for studies with multiple subjects as well as multicenter studies. In this study, we describe an optimized multi-parameter flow cytometry protocol for the quantification of human Treg cells from freshly obtained and viably frozen samples and correlations with epigenetic Treg cell analysis (TSDR demethylation). We apply these two methodologies to characterize Treg cell differences between cord blood and adult peripheral blood. In summary, the optimized protocol appears to be robust for Treg cell quantification from freshly isolated or viably frozen cells and the multi-parameter flow cytometry findings are strongly positively correlated with TSDR demethylation thus providing several options for the characterization of Treg cell frequency and function in large translational or clinical studies. (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