4.2 Article

Defining blood processing parameters for optimal detection of cryopreserved antigen-specific responses for HIV vaccine trials

Journal

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGICAL METHODS
Volume 322, Issue 1-2, Pages 57-69

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jim.2007.02.003

Keywords

T cells; IFN-gamma; cryopreservation

Funding

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [U01 AI048017, U01 AI068618] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) ELISpot and intracellular cytokine staining (ICS) assays are routinely employed in clinical HIV vaccine trials to identify antigen-specific T cells in cryopreserved peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC). Several parameters involved in blood collection, processing and shipping may influence immunological function of the resulting cells, including anticoagulant type, time from venipuncture to PBMC isolation/cryopreservation, method of PBMC isolation and procedure for sample shipping. We examined these parameters in single and multiple site studies, and found the length of time from venipuncture to cryopreservation is the most important parameter affecting performance of T cells in immunological assays. Comparing blood processed at 24 h after venipuncture with that processed within 8 h, we observed on average a modest reduction in PBMC viability (similar to 8% decrease), a greater loss in cell recovery (similar to 32%), and between 36-56% loss in IFN-gamma T cell frequencies by ELISpot assay. We also describe three cold shipping methods that maintain immunological function in appropriately cryopreserved PBMC. These data indicate that cryopreservation of PBMC should occur within 8 h of venipuncture for optimal performance. This narrow window for specimen processing has important implications in selecting and monitoring clinical sites with laboratory capacity to perform these procedures in future clinical trials. (C) 2007 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