4.2 Article

A novel flow cytometric approach to distinguish circulating endothelial cells from endothelial microparticles: Relevance for the evaluation of endothelial dysfunction

Journal

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGICAL METHODS
Volume 380, Issue 1-2, Pages 16-22

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jim.2012.03.007

Keywords

Vascular endothelium; Endothelial microparticles; Diabetes; Flow cytometry; Absolute count

Funding

  1. Fondazione Carichieti, Chieti, Italy
  2. Italian Ministry of Education, University Research (MIUR)
  3. national interest (COFIN)
  4. FIRB

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Circulating endothelial cells (CEC) and endothelial microparticles (EMP) are emerging as markers of endothelial repair and activation/apoptosis. Although significant changes in the number of CEC and EMP in pathological conditions have been reported, their reliable identification and quantification still remain a technical challenge. Here, we present a novel methodology for the identification and quantitation of CEC and EMP based on multicolor flow cytometry. Using a lyse/no wash protocol, we observed that in 50 mu l of peripheral blood, the large majority of events expressing an endothelial phenotype (CD45-/CD146+/CD34+) are due to non-nucleated particles (DRAQ5-) carrying mitochondria! activity (MitoTracker+) and, therefore, classified as EMP. We enumerated circulating EMP by single platform absolute count in a lyse/no wash four-color flow-cytometric procedure, which allowed the distinction, within the whole endothelial compartment, of EMP derived from endothelial progenitors (CD45-/CD146+/CD34+/CD117+) and from mature endothelial cells (CD45-/CD146+/CD34+/CD117-). A significant increase in both subsets was observed in patients with diabetes mellitus. Thus, this simple and highly reproducible method may be useful for monitoring endothelial dysfunction in clinical settings. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available