4.2 Article

Flow cytometric determination of intracellular or secreted IFNγ for the quantification of antigen reactive T cells

Journal

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGICAL METHODS
Volume 251, Issue 1-2, Pages 101-108

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-1759(01)00312-X

Keywords

flow cytometry; ELISPOT assay; T cells; peptide; intracellular cytokines

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The detection of antigen-induced IFN gamma secretion at the single cell level can be used to identify and enumerate antigen-reactive T cells from peripheral blood. This study was performed to analyze the suitability of T cell enumeration by flow cytometry in comparison with the ELISPOT assay. Peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) samples from six HLA-A2+ healthy subjects were analysed for the frequency of influenza-reactive CD8+ T cells by flow cytometry detecting either intracellular IFN gamma (IC-FC) or secreted IFN gamma (S-FC). All samples were also analysed by IFN gamma ELISPOT assay. The frequency of influenza peptide-reactive T cells determined by IC-FC was 0.01 to 0.34% of CD8+ T cells and by ELISPOT assay 0.02 to 0.23% of CD8+ T cells (n=6 subjects) with a high inter-assay reproducibility and a close correlation between the assays (r=0.77, P<0.001). Little or no IFN production was observed in unstimulated PBMC samples using either the IC-FC or the ELISPOT assay. In contrast, using S-FC large numbers of IFN gamma -secreting CD8+ T cells (0.37% to 5.55%, n=6 subjects) were detected in unstimulated PBMC. The frequency of influenza-reactive CD8+ T cells (0.57-5.19%, n=6 subjects) determined by S-FC did not correlate with the values from the IC-FC or ELISPOT assays. This comparative study shows the suitability of the determination of frequencies of antigen reactive T cells in PBMC by IC-FC. The advantage of IC-FC is the possibility to phenotype simultaneously antigen-reactive T cells. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science 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