在常规流式细胞仪上计数循环微泡的策略:计数珠和散射参数。

Q3 Medicine
Journal of Circulating Biomarkers Pub Date : 2018-04-05 eCollection Date: 2018-01-01 DOI:10.1177/1849454418766966
Mohammad J Alkhatatbeh, Anoop K Enjeti, Sara Baqar, Elif I Ekinci, Dorothy Liu, Rick F Thorne, Lisa F Lincz
{"title":"在常规流式细胞仪上计数循环微泡的策略:计数珠和散射参数。","authors":"Mohammad J Alkhatatbeh,&nbsp;Anoop K Enjeti,&nbsp;Sara Baqar,&nbsp;Elif I Ekinci,&nbsp;Dorothy Liu,&nbsp;Rick F Thorne,&nbsp;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":"{\"title\":\"Strategies for enumeration of circulating microvesicles on a conventional flow cytometer: Counting beads and scatter parameters.\",\"authors\":\"Mohammad J Alkhatatbeh,&nbsp;Anoop K Enjeti,&nbsp;Sara Baqar,&nbsp;Elif I Ekinci,&nbsp;Dorothy Liu,&nbsp;Rick F Thorne,&nbsp;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}","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

摘要

常规流式细胞术对循环微囊(MV)的计数是通过加入已知数量的计数珠来完成的,计算公式为:MV/μl = (MV计数/珠数)×最终珠浓度。我们试图通过确定检测“MV计数”的最佳参数,并检查不同的头制剂和浓度对最终计算的影响,来优化方程中的每个变量。测试了三种市售的珠粒制剂(TruCount, Flow-Count和CountBright),并对BD FACSCanto上的MV检测进行了优化,可以通过前向散射(FSC)或侧向散射(SSC)进行门控;通过计算74例典型患者血浆样品的不同MV亚群,对结果进行比较。每次试验中加入的珠粒数与流式细胞术计数的珠粒数之间的关系在很大的珠粒浓度范围内保持线性关系(R2≥0.997)。然而,TruCount珠产生最一致(浓度变化= 3.8%)的血浆CD41+/Annexin V+ MV计算值,显著高于使用Flow-Count或CountBright计算值(p < 0.001)。FACSCanto能够分辨0.5 μm的FSC和0.16 μm的SSC,但与FSC相比,SSC的背景事件明显更多(3113比470;P = 0.008)。总的来说,SSC样本分析导致MV数量显著增加(p < 0.0001),但与FSC计数对所有MV亚型有很好的相关性(ρ = 0.62-0.89, p < 0.0001)。结果表明,在6 ~ 100珠/μl浓度范围内,所有计数珠均呈线性,其中TruCount最符合线性。使用SSC门控MV事件产生高背景,这对计数头计数和整体MV计算产生负面影响。为了可靠地使用该技术,应采用降低SSC背景的策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Strategies for enumeration of circulating microvesicles on a conventional flow cytometer: Counting beads and scatter parameters.

Strategies for enumeration of circulating microvesicles on a conventional flow cytometer: Counting beads and scatter parameters.

Strategies for enumeration of circulating microvesicles on a conventional flow cytometer: Counting beads and scatter parameters.

Strategies for enumeration of circulating microvesicles on a conventional flow cytometer: Counting beads and scatter parameters.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Circulating Biomarkers
Journal of Circulating Biomarkers Medicine-Biochemistry (medical)
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
8 weeks
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.
×
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