4.2 Article

A robust, high-throughput assay to determine the phagocytic activity of clinical antibody samples

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGICAL METHODS
卷 366, 期 1-2, 页码 8-19

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jim.2010.12.016

关键词

Phagocytosis; Antibody; ADCC; Antibody-dependent phagocytosis; Monocytes; Fc receptor; Effector function

资金

  1. International AIDS Vaccine Initiative through the Neutralizing Antibody Consortium
  2. Ragon Institute of MGH
  3. MIT
  4. Harvard
  5. NIH [A1055332, A1080289]
  6. NIAID

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phagocytosis can be induced via the engagement of Fc gamma receptors by antibody-opsonized material. Furthermore, the efficiency of antibody-induced effector functions has been shown to be dramatically modulated by changes in antibody glycosylation. Because infection can modulate antibody glycans, which in turn modulate antibody functions, assays capable of determining the induction of effector functions rather than neutralization or titer provide a valuable opportunity to more fully characterize the quality of the adaptive immune response. Here we describe a robust and high-throughput flow cytometric assay to define the phagocytic activity of antigen-specific antibodies from clinical samples. This assay employs a monocytic cell line that expresses numerous Fc receptors: including inhibitory and activating, and high and low affinity receptors allowing complex phenotypes to be studied. We demonstrate the adaptability of this high-throughput, flow-based assay to measure antigen-specific antibody-mediated phagocytosis against an array of viruses, including influenza, HIV, and dengue. The phagocytosis assay format further allows for simultaneous analysis of cytokine release, as well as determination of the role of specific Fry-receptor subtypes, making it a highly useful system for parsing differences in the ability of clinical and vaccine induced antibody samples to recruit this critical effector function. (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