4.6 Article

High-Sensitivity Assessment of Phagocytosis by Persistent Association-Based Normalization

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 206, 期 1, 页码 214-+

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.2000032

关键词

-

资金

  1. Royal Physiographic Society in Lund
  2. Gyllenstierna-Krapperup Foundation
  3. Swedish Research Council
  4. Swedish Society of Medicine
  5. Crafoord Foundation
  6. Schyberg Foundation
  7. Groschinsky Foundation
  8. Osterlund Foundation
  9. Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study introduces a novel method for evaluating phagocytosis experiments using persistent association-based normalization, which shows improved performance compared to standard methods, with increased robustness, sensitivity, and reproducibility. This approach is simple, easily applicable to most phagocytosis assays, and provides high sensitivity and reproducible results.
Phagocytosis is measured as a functional outcome in many research fields, but accurate quantification can be challenging, with no robust method available for cross-laboratory reproducibility. In this study, we identified a simple, measurable parameter, persistent prey-phagocyte association, to use for normalization and dose-response analysis. We apply this in a straightforward analytical method, persistent association-based normalization, in which the multiplicity of prey (MOP) ratio needed to elicit half of the phagocytes to associate persistently (MOP50) is determined first. MOP50 is then applied to normalize for experimental factors, separately analyzing association and internalization. We use reference human phagocyte THP-1 cells with different prey and opsonization conditions to compare the persistent association-based normalization method to standard ways of assessing phagocytosis and find it to perform better, exhibiting increased robustness, sensitivity, and reproducibility. The approach is easily incorporated into most existing phagocytosis assays and allows for reproducible results with high sensitivity.

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