Mohammad J Alkhatatbeh, Anoop K Enjeti, Sara Baqar, Elif I Ekinci, Dorothy Liu, Rick F Thorne, Lisa F Lincz
{"title":"Strategies for enumeration of circulating microvesicles on a conventional flow cytometer: Counting beads and scatter parameters.","authors":"Mohammad J Alkhatatbeh, Anoop K Enjeti, Sara Baqar, Elif I Ekinci, Dorothy Liu, Rick F Thorne, Lisa F Lincz","doi":"10.1177/1849454418766966","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Enumeration of circulating microvesicles (MVs) by conventional flow cytometry is accomplished by the addition of a known amount of counting beads and calculated from the formula: MV/μl = (MV count/bead count) × final bead concentration. We sought to optimize each variable in the equation by determining the best parameters for detecting 'MV count' and examining the effects of different bead preparations and concentrations on the final calculation. Three commercially available bead preparations (TruCount, Flow-Count and CountBright) were tested, and MV detection on a BD FACSCanto was optimized for gating by either forward scatter (FSC) or side scatter (SSC); the results were compared by calculating different subsets of MV on a series of 74 typical patient plasma samples. The relationship between the number of beads added to each test and the number of beads counted by flow cytometry remained linear over a wide range of bead concentrations (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> ≥ 0.997). However, TruCount beads produced the most consistent (concentration variation = 3.8%) calculated numbers of plasma CD41<sup>+</sup>/Annexin V<sup>+</sup> MV, which were significantly higher from that calculated using either Flow-Count or CountBright (<i>p</i> < 0.001). The FACSCanto was able to resolve 0.5 μm beads by FSC and 0.16 μm beads by SSC, but there were significantly more background events using SSC compared with FSC (3113 vs. 470; <i>p</i> = 0.008). In general, sample analysis by SSC resulted in significantly higher numbers of MV (<i>p</i> < 0.0001) but was well correlated with enumeration by FSC for all MV subtypes (<i>ρ</i> = 0.62-0.89, <i>p</i> < 0.0001). We conclude that all counting beads provided linear results at concentrations ranging from 6 beads/μl to 100 beads/μl, but TruCount was the most consistent. Using SSC to gate MV events produced high background which negatively affected counting bead enumeration and overall MV calculations. Strategies to reduce SSC background should be employed in order to reliably use this technique.</p>","PeriodicalId":37524,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Circulating Biomarkers","volume":"7 ","pages":"1849454418766966"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1849454418766966","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Circulating Biomarkers","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1849454418766966","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15
Abstract
Enumeration of circulating microvesicles (MVs) by conventional flow cytometry is accomplished by the addition of a known amount of counting beads and calculated from the formula: MV/μl = (MV count/bead count) × final bead concentration. We sought to optimize each variable in the equation by determining the best parameters for detecting 'MV count' and examining the effects of different bead preparations and concentrations on the final calculation. Three commercially available bead preparations (TruCount, Flow-Count and CountBright) were tested, and MV detection on a BD FACSCanto was optimized for gating by either forward scatter (FSC) or side scatter (SSC); the results were compared by calculating different subsets of MV on a series of 74 typical patient plasma samples. The relationship between the number of beads added to each test and the number of beads counted by flow cytometry remained linear over a wide range of bead concentrations (R2 ≥ 0.997). However, TruCount beads produced the most consistent (concentration variation = 3.8%) calculated numbers of plasma CD41+/Annexin V+ MV, which were significantly higher from that calculated using either Flow-Count or CountBright (p < 0.001). The FACSCanto was able to resolve 0.5 μm beads by FSC and 0.16 μm beads by SSC, but there were significantly more background events using SSC compared with FSC (3113 vs. 470; p = 0.008). In general, sample analysis by SSC resulted in significantly higher numbers of MV (p < 0.0001) but was well correlated with enumeration by FSC for all MV subtypes (ρ = 0.62-0.89, p < 0.0001). We conclude that all counting beads provided linear results at concentrations ranging from 6 beads/μl to 100 beads/μl, but TruCount was the most consistent. Using SSC to gate MV events produced high background which negatively affected counting bead enumeration and overall MV calculations. Strategies to reduce SSC background should be employed in order to reliably use this technique.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Circulating Biomarkers is an international, peer-reviewed, open access scientific journal focusing on all aspects of the rapidly growing field of circulating blood-based biomarkers and diagnostics using circulating protein and lipid markers, circulating tumor cells (CTC), circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and extracellular vesicles, including exosomes, microvesicles, microparticles, ectosomes and apoptotic bodies. The journal publishes high-impact articles that deal with all fields related to circulating biomarkers and diagnostics, ranging from basic science to translational and clinical applications. Papers from a wide variety of disciplines are welcome; interdisciplinary studies are especially suitable for this journal. Included within the scope are a broad array of specialties including (but not limited to) cancer, immunology, neurology, metabolic diseases, cardiovascular medicine, regenerative medicine, nosology, physiology, pathology, technological applications in diagnostics, therapeutics, vaccine, drug delivery, regenerative medicine, drug development and clinical trials. The journal also hosts reviews, perspectives and news on specific topics.