4.0 Article

Antibody screening data of human midgestation liver cells with a focus on hematopoietic, liver sinusoidal endothelial, and hepatoblast cell-populations

Journal

BMC RESEARCH NOTES
Volume 15, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1186/s13104-022-06229-3

Keywords

Flow cytometry; Antigens; Hepatology; Liver; Endothelial Cells; Blood Cells; Leukocyte Common Antigens; Human; Fetus

Funding

  1. California Institute for Regenerative Medicine
  2. California Institute of Regenerative Medicine [DISC1-08855]
  3. [EDUC2-08400]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study performed cell-surface antigen screening on human fetal liver cells using flow cytometry, providing proteomic expression data for developmental hepatology and hematology studies.
ObjectivesCell-surface antigen screening was performed on human fetal liver cells using flow cytometry. The goal was to provide proteomic expression data on a number of human fetal liver cell populations that can inform studies on developmental hepatology and hematology. Data descriptionA 21 weeks' gestation liver was depleted of erythrocytes prior to antibody staining. Screening was performed using phycoerythrin-labelled antibodies against 332 antigens. In addition to these antibodies, all samples were stained for CD14, CD45, CD235a, and CD326 (epithelial cell adhesion molecule - EpCAM). Subpopulations of fetal liver cells were identified using the co-stained antigens. Hematopoietic cells were identified by their expression of CD45 and CD235a; non-hematopoietic cells were further subdivided based on CD14 and CD326 expression. CD326(++)CD14(low) hepatoblasts and CD14(++) liver sinusoidal endothelial cells were analyzed for the frequency and intensity of antigen expression. Analyzed flow cytometry data are presented for the expression of the antigens on hematopoietic cells and on non-hematopoietic cells in the context of CD14 and CD326 expression.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available