Multisite comparison of methods for the quantitation of the surface expression of CD38 on CD8(+) T lymphocytes. The ACTG Advanced Flow Cytometry Focus Group.

Cytometry Pub Date : 2000-06-15
J L Schmitz, M A Czerniewski, M Edinger, S Plaeger, R Gelman, C L Wilkening, J A Zawadzki, S B Wormsley
{"title":"Multisite comparison of methods for the quantitation of the surface expression of CD38 on CD8(+) T lymphocytes. The ACTG Advanced Flow Cytometry Focus Group.","authors":"J L Schmitz,&nbsp;M A Czerniewski,&nbsp;M Edinger,&nbsp;S Plaeger,&nbsp;R Gelman,&nbsp;C L Wilkening,&nbsp;J A Zawadzki,&nbsp;S B Wormsley","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We evaluated the effect of specimen processing variations and quantitation methods on quantitative determination of CD38 expression on CD8 T lymphocytes. Neither lysing reagent (ammonium chloride versus BD FACSlyse), fixation (paraformaldehyde versus no final fixation step), nor acquisition delay (acquisition within 6 h after fixation versus 24 h after fixation) had a significant effect on CD38 relative fluorescent intensity or CD38 quantitative estimates (RFI or antibodies bound per cell). The only significant difference in fluorescent intensity and CD38 antibodies bound per cell (ABC) was encountered when whole blood was held for 24 h prior to staining and fixation and then acquired after another 24-h hold. However, for all sample processing methods above, the CD4 biologic calibrator and QuantiBRITE bead methods gave significantly different estimates of CD38 intensity. In many cases, however, these differences are relatively small and were more pronounced in certain laboratories. We conclude that there is some flexibility in sample processing methods for quantitative CD38 determination; however, it is preferable for a laboratory to employ one method of fluorescence quantitation calculation consistently because small differences are detected between different methods. Cytometry (Comm. Clin. Cytometry) 42:174-179, 2000.</p>","PeriodicalId":10947,"journal":{"name":"Cytometry","volume":"42 3","pages":"174-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cytometry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We evaluated the effect of specimen processing variations and quantitation methods on quantitative determination of CD38 expression on CD8 T lymphocytes. Neither lysing reagent (ammonium chloride versus BD FACSlyse), fixation (paraformaldehyde versus no final fixation step), nor acquisition delay (acquisition within 6 h after fixation versus 24 h after fixation) had a significant effect on CD38 relative fluorescent intensity or CD38 quantitative estimates (RFI or antibodies bound per cell). The only significant difference in fluorescent intensity and CD38 antibodies bound per cell (ABC) was encountered when whole blood was held for 24 h prior to staining and fixation and then acquired after another 24-h hold. However, for all sample processing methods above, the CD4 biologic calibrator and QuantiBRITE bead methods gave significantly different estimates of CD38 intensity. In many cases, however, these differences are relatively small and were more pronounced in certain laboratories. We conclude that there is some flexibility in sample processing methods for quantitative CD38 determination; however, it is preferable for a laboratory to employ one method of fluorescence quantitation calculation consistently because small differences are detected between different methods. Cytometry (Comm. Clin. Cytometry) 42:174-179, 2000.

CD38在CD8(+) T淋巴细胞表面表达定量方法的多位点比较ACTG高级流式细胞术焦点组。
我们评估了标本处理变化和定量方法对CD8 T淋巴细胞CD38表达的影响。裂解试剂(氯化铵vs BD faclyse)、固定(多聚甲醛vs无最终固定步骤)、获取延迟(固定后6小时内获取vs固定后24小时)对CD38相对荧光强度或CD38定量估计(RFI或每个细胞结合的抗体)都没有显著影响。荧光强度和单细胞结合CD38抗体(ABC)的唯一显著差异是在全血在染色和固定前保存24小时,然后再保存24小时后获得。然而,对于上述所有样品处理方法,CD4生物校准器和QuantiBRITE头方法给出的CD38强度估计值明显不同。然而,在许多情况下,这些差异相对较小,在某些实验室中更为明显。我们得出结论,样品处理方法在定量测定CD38方面有一定的灵活性;然而,对于实验室来说,最好始终如一地使用一种荧光定量计算方法,因为不同方法之间检测到的差异很小。细胞术(通讯,临床)细胞生物学(英文版)42(2):1779 - 1779,2000。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信