首页> 外文期刊>Cytometry: The Journal of the Society for Analytical Cytology >Comparison between a lyse-and-then-wash method and a lyse-non-wash technique for the enumeration of CD34+ hematopoietic progenitor cells
【24h】

Comparison between a lyse-and-then-wash method and a lyse-non-wash technique for the enumeration of CD34+ hematopoietic progenitor cells

机译:CD34 +造血祖细胞计数的先洗后洗方法与不洗不洗技术的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The flow cytometric enumeration of CD34+ hemopoietic precursor cells (HPC) present in samples used for transplantation of HPC has proven to be the most powerful single parameter for prediction of engraftment, At present, several different methodological approaches are used for the flow cytometric enumeration of CD34+ HPC, In the present study we have compared two of these methods as regards enumeration of CD34+ HPC and their CD34+/CD19- and CD34+/CD19+ subsets: a lyse-non-wash procedure based on the use of a recently commercialized red cell lysing solution (Quicklysis, Cytognos, Salamanca, Spain) and a lyse-and-then-wash method in which the Becton Dickinson (San lose, CA) FAGS Lysing Solution was used. For that purpose a total of 52 samples corresponding to 20 G-CSF mobilized peripheral blood (PB) samples and 21 PB-derived leucapheresis products from patients undergoing autologous PB stem cell harvest, together with 11 bone marrow (BM) samples from healthy volunteers were analyzed. Our results show that for each of the three types of samples analyzed the use of the lyse-and-then-wash method is associated with significantly lower numbers of both total CD34+ HPC (P less than or equal to 0.003) and its major CD34+/CD19- subset (P less than or equal to 0.01) while no significant changes are detected in the number of CD34+/CD19+ HPC in BM samples (P > 0.05), The use of an internal standard (reference beads) added just prior to data acquisition, showed that the differences between both methods are due to a selective loss of CD34+ HPC and its major CD34+/CD19- subset in BM (P = 0.002 and P = 0.003), PB (P < 0.0001 and P < 0.0001) and PB-derived leucapheresis products (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.0001). Finally, addition of a centrifugation and washing step to a group of 11 leucapheresis samples lysed with Quicklysis showed that they did not significantly affect the overall number of total CD34+, CD34+/CD19- and CD34+/CD19+ HPC obtained. In line with these findings elimination of centrifugation and washing steps when FAGS Lysing Solution was used to lyse mature red cells almost corrected for the selective loss of CD34+ HPC, In spite of these differences a significant degree of correlation (r > 0.83 in all cases) was found between both methods regarding the total number of CD34+, CD34+/CD19- and CD34+/CD19+ HPC present in the BM, PB and PB-derived leucapheresis samples analyzed in this study. (C) 1998 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [References: 21]
机译:已证明,用于HPC移植的样品中存在的CD34 +造血前体细胞(HPC)的流式细胞计数是预测植入的最强大的单一参数。目前,几种不同的方法学方法用于CD34 +的流式细胞计数HPC,在本研究中,我们比较了CD34 + HPC及其CD34 + / CD19-和CD34 + / CD19 +亚类的列举中的两种方法:基于最近商业化的红细胞裂解液的裂解-非洗涤程序(Quicklysis,Cytognos,Salamanca,西班牙)和先洗后洗的方法,其中使用了Becton Dickinson(加利福尼亚州San Los)FAGS裂解液。为此目的,共计52个样本(对应于20例G-CSF动员外周血(PB)样​​本)和21例来自自体PB干细胞收获患者的PB来源的白细胞分离产品,以及11例健康志愿者的骨髓(BM)样本分析。我们的结果表明,对于所分析的三种类型的样本中的每种样本,使用先洗后洗的方法与总CD34 + HPC(P小于或等于0.003)及其主要CD34 + / CD19-子集(P小于或等于0.01),而BM样品中CD34 + / CD19 + HPC的数量未发现显着变化(P> 0.05),在数据之前使用了内标(参考珠)采集显示两种方法之间的差异是由于BM(P = 0.002和P = 0.003),PB(P <0.0001和P <0.0001)和PB中CD34 + HPC及其主要CD34 + / CD19-亚群的选择性损失引起的衍生的白细胞去除产物(P <0.0001和P = 0.0001)。最后,在一组由Quicklysis裂解的11个白细胞分离样品中添加离心和洗涤步骤表明,它们不会显着影响获得的CD34 +,CD34 + / CD19-和CD34 + / CD19 + HPC的总数。与这些发现相一致,当使用FAGS裂解液裂解成熟的红细胞时,几乎无需针对CD34 + HPC的选择性损失进行校正,因此消除了离心和洗涤步骤。尽管存在这些差异,但相关程度仍然很高(在所有情况下r> 0.83)在本研究中分析的BM,PB和PB来源的白细胞去除术样本中存在的CD34 +,CD34 + / CD19-和CD34 + / CD19 + HPC总数之间,发现这两种方法之间存在差异。 (C)1998 Wiley-Liss,Inc. [参考:21]

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号