4.6 Article

Standardization of platelet-derived microparticle counting using calibrated beads and a Cytomics FC500 routine flow cytometer: a first step towards multicenter studies?

期刊

JOURNAL OF THROMBOSIS AND HAEMOSTASIS
卷 7, 期 1, 页码 190-197

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2008.03200.x

关键词

beads; flow cytometry; megamix; microparticles; standardization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Platelet microparticles (PMPs) have proved useful to identify patients with vascular risk. However, PMP counting, which is currently done by flow cytometry (FCM), needs to be standardized. Objectives: The objectives were (i) to standardize FCM settings for PMP counts on a routine instrument (Cytomics FC500) using size-calibrated fluorescent beads; (ii) to determine intra-instrument and interinstrument reproducibility; and (iii) to establish PMP values in healthy subjects. Methods: Using a blend of size-calibrated fluorescent beads (0.5 and 0.9 mu m) in a fixed numerical ratio (Megamix), we gated PMPs in a restricted size window. To test intra-instrument and inter-instrument reproducibility, annexin V and CD41 coexpression were used to count PMPs in frozen aliquots of the same platelet-free plasma (PFP) over 4 months and in PFP from 10 healthy subjects on three independent flow cytometers. Results: This calibrated-bead strategy allowed full long-term control of the FCM-based microparticle protocol and reproducible PMP counts over time [coefficient of variation (CV) < 10%]. Optimal settings were easily transferred from one instrument to another, using Megamix as a stable template. Similar PMP counts (CV < 12%) were obtained using the three instruments. With such a standardized FCM protocol, PMP values were established in healthy subjects (n = 60) with significantly higher levels in women than in men [median (1st quartile to 3rd quartile): 1775 mu L-1 (1014-3039 mu L-1) vs. 656 mu L-1 (407-962 mu L-1)]. Conclusions: The present strategy provides a new option for PMP count standardization and thus opens the way for multicenter studies.

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

4.6
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