4.3 Article

Flow cytometric determination of allergen-specific T lymphocyte proliferation from whole blood in experimentally asthmatic cats

期刊

VETERINARY IMMUNOLOGY AND IMMUNOPATHOLOGY
卷 149, 期 1-2, 页码 1-5

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.vetimm.2012.05.014

关键词

Clinical immunology; Antigen recall; Allergy; Mitogen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ability to quantify feline lymphocyte proliferation, especially to specific antigen or allergen, would be valuable in experimental models and naturally developing disease where activated lymphocytes drive immune responses. Traditional proliferation assays may pose radioactivity hazards, lack the ability to distinguish viable from non-viable cells, and cannot discriminate individual populations of proliferating lymphocytes (e.g., the CD4+ T cell class). We hypothesized that in an experimental model of feline allergic asthma a four-color flow cytometric assay capable of simultaneously detecting division, viability and cell surface markers (pan T cell marker CD5 or CD4) would allow characterization of lymphocytes stimulated ex vivo using the sensitizing allergen, Bermuda grass (BGA). Peripheral blood mononuclear cells were harvested from eight experimentally asthmatic cats to validate and optimize use of a cell proliferation dye or bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU) with BGA-specific stimulation in a lymphocyte proliferation flow cytometric assay. Only the latter reagent was suitable in the cat. After a 3 day incubation, antibodies with different fluorochromes were used to identify BrdU, viable cells, CD5 and CD4 for subsequent flow cytometric analysis. In asthmatic cats, the group mean +/- SEM of proliferating CD5+ lymphocytes was 2.3 +/- 0.5%. The group mean +/- SEM of proliferating CD4+ lymphocytes was 1.2 +/- 0.3%. Flow cytometry is a sensitive method for detecting simultaneous proliferation and viability of very minor populations of allergen-specific lymphocytes in experimentally asthmatic cats. (C) 2012 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

4.3
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