3.8 Article

Evaluation of stabilized blood cell products as candidate preparations for quality assessment programs for CD4 T-cell counting

期刊

CYTOMETRY
卷 50, 期 2, 页码 86-91

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/cyto.10090

关键词

stabilized cell preparation; quality assessment program; T-cell subset; flow cytometry; immunophenotyping; morphospectral attribute; robust cell preparation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Exceptionally robust cell preparations are needed for quality assessment programs (QAPs) such as the International Program for Quality Assessment and Standardization for Immunological Measures (QASI) relevant to HIV/AIDS. A suitable product must withstand environmental stress related to transportation for a minimum of 6 days. The two objectives of this study are (1) to evaluate the performance of various commercial preparations with multicenter participation and (2) to evaluate the robustness of stabilized blood cell products. Methods: Phase 1 : The performance of stabilized blood cell products was evaluated in a multicenter QAP utilizing various staining procedures and flow cytometers. Absolute cell enumeration was achieved using single-platform T-cell subset methodology. Phase 2: The robustness of stabilized blood cell products was evaluated by monitoring T-cell subset values from samples stared at 4degreesC, 22degreesC, and 37degreesC for up to 10 days. Results: The largest interlaboratory variation in both absolute and relative T-cell values was 16% in samples with CD4 levels greater than or equal to400 cells per microliter and 21% in samples with CD4 levels <400 cells per microliter. Six preparations retained their phenotypic expression for 7 days at 4degreesC and 22degreesC. However, only two preparations remained stable for 4 days at 37degreesC. Conclusion. Some stabilized cell preparations are more robust and therefore more suitable for quality assessment purposes. Cytometry (Clin. Cytometry) 50: 86-91, 2002. (C) 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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

3.8
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