4.2 Article

Conventional apoptosis assays using propidium iodide generate a significant number of false positives that prevent accurate assessment of cell death

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGICAL METHODS
卷 358, 期 1-2, 页码 81-92

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jim.2010.03.019

关键词

Apoptosis; Necrosis; Propidium iodide; RNA; Cell death; Viral infection

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada (NSERC)
  2. Alberta Agriculture Funding Consortium
  3. Canadian Institute for Health Research (CIHR)
  4. Burroughs Wellcome Fund (BWF)
  5. University of Alberta
  6. Queen Elizabeth II scholarship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The advent of flow cytometry-based applications has significantly impacted the study of cellular apoptosis. Propidium iodide (PI) is a commonly used viability stain in these studies. Unfortunately, we find that conventional Annexin V/PI protocols lead to a significant number of false positive events (up to 40%), which are associated with PI staining of RNA within the cytoplasmic compartment. Both primary cells and cell lines are affected, with large cells (nuclear: cytoplasmic ratios <0.5) showing the highest occurrence. This distribution spans a wide range of animal models including mice, swine, avian, and teleost fish and potentially affects up to 1016 out of 1019 of peer-reviewed papers published in this area since 1995. We show that the primary ramifications from these findings relate to cells experiencing changes in RNA content. Virally infected cells, for example, are qualified as undergoing apoptosis in response to infection based on conventional staining protocols; in fact, these cells are alive and actively producing viral RNA that can serve to produce additional infectious viral particles. Based on our observations we propose a modified protocol, show that it overcomes previous drawbacks for this technique, and that it will allow for more accurate assessment of cell death across various platforms. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据