4.2 Article

Flow cytometric assessment of homeostatic aging of reticulocytes in rats

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL HEMATOLOGY
卷 36, 期 2, 页码 119-127

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.exphem.2007.09.002

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. The purpose of this work was to develop a flow cytometry method of obtaining RNA-thiazole orange signal distribution of reticulocytes (RET) from bone marrow aspirates and determine the distribution of age for RET in the blood and bone marrow. Methods. The thiazole orange (an RNA dye) and LDS-751 (a DNA dye) composition was used to separate RET from other cell populations. LDS 751 was used to separate red blood cells (RBC) from nucleated cells. The differentiation between mature RBC and RET was done by means of the presence of residual RNA. It also served as a marker of age of RET. In vitro changes of the fluorescence signal of the RET population allowed us to obtain the unique relationship between the signal and the age for an individual cell and was used to transform the in vivo signal distribution into the age distribution. Results. The determination of age was not possible due to the lack of knowledge of the RET signal distribution at birth. Instead, a relative time (RT) that a RET needs to become a mature RBC was used. The RT distribution of RET in blood and bone marrow was determined. The RT that an average RET spends in the blood is 0.43 days and ranges from 0 to 1.1 days. The time an average RET in bone marrow needs to become a mature RBC, is 1.36 days. The RET born with the highest signal needs about 1.8 days to become a mature RBC. About 37% reticulocytes die in the circulation. Conclusions. In summary, the thiazole orange staining can be used for determination of the RET age distribution. However, only the RT distribution can be determined. The proposed method was successfully applied to characterize in vivo aging of blood and bone marrow RET. (C) 2008 ISEH - Society for Hematology and Stem Cells. Published by Elsevier Inc.

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