4.3 Article

Evaluation of intranuclear BrdU detection procedures for use in multicolor flow cytometry

期刊

CYTOMETRY PART A
卷 69A, 期 4, 页码 249-259

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cyto.a.20252

关键词

intracellular staining; lymphocyte dynamics; splenic B cell subsets; B-1 a cells

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [AI051354, R01 AI051354-08, R01 AI051354-01, R01 AI051354-03, R01 AI051354, R01 AI051354-02] Funding Source: Medline
  2. PHS HHS [A160555] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Measurement of cell proliferation via BrdU incorporation in combination with multicolor cell surface staining would facilitate studies on cell Subsets that require multiple markers for their identification. However, the extent to which the often harsh cell preparation procedures required affect the staining quality of more recently developed fluorescent dyes has not been assessed. Methods: Three cell preparation protocols for BrdU measurement were compared for their ability to maintain fluorescent surface staining and scatter parameters of in vivo BrdU-labeled cells by flow cytometry. A 10-color fluorescent panel was developed to test the quality Of Surface staining, following cell treatment and the ability to perform BrdU measurements on even small B lymphocyte subsets. Results: All cell preparation procedures affected the quality of fluorescent and/or scatter parameters to varying degrees. Paraformaldehyde/saponin-based procedures preserved sufficient fluorescent surface staining to determine BrdU incorporation rites among all splenic B cell Subsets, including B-1a cells, which constitute roughly 0.5% of cells. Turnover rites of B-1a cells were similar to immature B cells and higher thin those of the other mature B cell subsets. Conclusion: Paraformaldehyde/saponin-based cell preparation procedures facilitate detailed cell turnover studies on small cell subsets in vivo, revealing new functional information on rare cell populations. (c) 2006 International Society for Analytical Cytology.

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