Standardizing stem cell enumeration: A methodological comparison of single and dual flow cytometry platforms.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q3 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
Hind Shakah, Alaa Alwahidi, Lara Sarhan, Habibah AlAittan, Saleh Khudirat, Ohood Hammad, Maysa Al-Hussaini
{"title":"Standardizing stem cell enumeration: A methodological comparison of single and dual flow cytometry platforms.","authors":"Hind Shakah, Alaa Alwahidi, Lara Sarhan, Habibah AlAittan, Saleh Khudirat, Ohood Hammad, Maysa Al-Hussaini","doi":"10.1002/cyto.b.70034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Two flow cytometry methods are used for stem cell (CD34<sup>+</sup>) enumeration; single platform (SP) and dual platform (DP). While several studies reported comparable results, others suggested superiority of the SP method. This study evaluated variations between both methods using a modified workflow. A total of 54 fresh and thawed specimens, including mobilized peripheral blood, apheresis products, and umbilical cord blood, were analyzed using both methods. High concordance between SP and DP methods was observed for absolute viable CD34<sup>+</sup> counts in fresh and thawed specimens (p = 0.088 and 0.427, respectively), as well as for CD34<sup>+</sup> viability (p = 0.085 and 0.801). Absolute viable WBC counts were comparable between methods in thawed specimens (p = 0.124), whereas a modest statistical variation was observed in fresh specimen group (p = 0.039), largely influenced by umbilical cord blood samples. Variation in absolute viable CD34<sup>+</sup> counts remained within clinically acceptable limits, with median variations of 2.4 for fresh and 1.4 for thawed samples. SP and DP methods demonstrated high concordance for absolute viable CD34<sup>+</sup> enumeration and CD34<sup>+</sup> viability in fresh and thawed specimens. Although a modest variation in viable WBC counts was observed in fresh samples, this did not affect CD34<sup>+</sup> enumeration and remained clinically acceptable. While SP provides a standardized approach, the DP method offered greater gating flexibility, with fewer technical resources required, and was approximately 70% more cost-effective, supporting its use as a practical alternative in appropriate laboratory settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":10883,"journal":{"name":"Cytometry Part B: Clinical Cytometry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cytometry Part B: Clinical Cytometry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cyto.b.70034","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Two flow cytometry methods are used for stem cell (CD34+) enumeration; single platform (SP) and dual platform (DP). While several studies reported comparable results, others suggested superiority of the SP method. This study evaluated variations between both methods using a modified workflow. A total of 54 fresh and thawed specimens, including mobilized peripheral blood, apheresis products, and umbilical cord blood, were analyzed using both methods. High concordance between SP and DP methods was observed for absolute viable CD34+ counts in fresh and thawed specimens (p = 0.088 and 0.427, respectively), as well as for CD34+ viability (p = 0.085 and 0.801). Absolute viable WBC counts were comparable between methods in thawed specimens (p = 0.124), whereas a modest statistical variation was observed in fresh specimen group (p = 0.039), largely influenced by umbilical cord blood samples. Variation in absolute viable CD34+ counts remained within clinically acceptable limits, with median variations of 2.4 for fresh and 1.4 for thawed samples. SP and DP methods demonstrated high concordance for absolute viable CD34+ enumeration and CD34+ viability in fresh and thawed specimens. Although a modest variation in viable WBC counts was observed in fresh samples, this did not affect CD34+ enumeration and remained clinically acceptable. While SP provides a standardized approach, the DP method offered greater gating flexibility, with fewer technical resources required, and was approximately 70% more cost-effective, supporting its use as a practical alternative in appropriate laboratory settings.

标准化干细胞计数:单流式和双流式细胞仪平台的方法学比较。
干细胞(CD34+)计数采用两种流式细胞术方法;单平台(SP)和双平台(DP)。虽然有几项研究报告了类似的结果,但其他研究表明SP方法的优越性。本研究使用修改后的工作流程评估了两种方法之间的差异。采用两种方法对54例新鲜和解冻标本进行分析,包括动员外周血、采血产物和脐带血。在新鲜和解冻标本中,SP和DP方法的绝对活CD34+计数(p = 0.088和0.427)以及CD34+活力(p = 0.085和0.801)高度一致。两种方法在解冻标本中的绝对活白细胞计数具有可比性(p = 0.124),而在新鲜标本组中观察到适度的统计差异(p = 0.039),主要受脐带血样本的影响。绝对活CD34+计数的变化保持在临床可接受的范围内,新鲜样品的中位数变化为2.4,解冻样品的中位数变化为1.4。SP法和DP法在新鲜和解冻标本中CD34+绝对活菌计数和CD34+活菌计数具有较高的一致性。尽管在新鲜样本中观察到活白细胞计数的适度变化,但这并不影响CD34+计数,并且仍然是临床可接受的。SP提供了一种标准化的方法,而DP方法提供了更大的门控灵活性,所需的技术资源更少,成本效益高出约70%,支持其在适当的实验室环境中作为实用的替代方案使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
32.40%
发文量
51
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Cytometry Part B: Clinical Cytometry features original research reports, in-depth reviews and special issues that directly relate to and palpably impact clinical flow, mass and image-based cytometry. These may include clinical and translational investigations important in the diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic management of patients. Thus, we welcome research papers from various disciplines related [but not limited to] hematopathologists, hematologists, immunologists and cell biologists with clinically relevant and innovative studies investigating individual-cell analytics and/or separations. In addition to the types of papers indicated above, we also welcome Letters to the Editor, describing case reports or important medical or technical topics relevant to our readership without the length and depth of a full original report.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书