4.1 Article

Application of an improved flow cytometry-based NK cell activity assay in adult hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEMATOLOGY
卷 105, 期 6, 页码 828-834

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s12185-017-2195-3

关键词

Natural killer cell; Cytotoxicity; Flow cytometry; Enhanced green fluorescent protein; Apoptosis; Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis

资金

  1. Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Plan of Capital Characteristics Project [Z151100004015172]
  2. Capital Health Research and Medical Development Foundation [2016-2-2027]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of Youth Project [81401627]
  4. Rising Star Program of Beijing Friendship Hospital [yyqdkt2015-9]
  5. Basic-Clinical Cooperation Program from Capital Medical University [16JL02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Low or absent natural killer (NK) cell activity is included as one of the HLH-2004 diagnostic criteria. To improve the diagnosis of HLH, we aimed to establish a rapid and reliable NK cell activity assay that avoids the use of radioactivity. The K562 cell line, as standard NK target cells, was engineered to stably express enhanced green fluorescent protein (EGFP), which can be quantified by flow cytometry. The EGFP-flow cytometry method for measuring NK cell activity was improved by double staining of early and late apoptotic target cells. Whole-blood samples from healthy volunteers were assessed with this method, which demonstrated that optimal conditions were effector-target ratio of 10:1 and incubation time of 4 h. This method was further evaluated for samples from 113 HLH patients and 64 healthy volunteers. Mean NK cell activity in either primary or secondary HLH patients was significantly lower (P < 0.001) than in healthy individuals (20.23 +/- 4.12%). Furthermore, primary HLH patients (10.76 +/- 2.54%) exhibited even lower (P < 0.001) NK cell activity compared with secondary HLH patients (15.01 +/- 3.62%). We have optimized and implemented this method in clinically relevant samples.

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

4.1
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