4.5 Article

Quantitative In Situ Analysis of FoxP3(+) T Regulatory Cells on Transplant Tissue Using Laser Scanning Cytometry

期刊

CELL TRANSPLANTATION
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 113-125

出版社

COGNIZANT COMMUNICATION CORP
DOI: 10.3727/096368911X586747

关键词

T regulatory cells (Tregs); Foxp3; Laser scanning cytometry (LSC); iCys; Transplant biopsy; Quantification

资金

  1. Diabetes Research Institute Foundation
  2. NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES [U42RR016603] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [U01DK070460, R01DK025802] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is abundant evidence that immune cells infiltrating into a transplanted organ play a critical role for destructive inflammatory or regulatory immune reactions. Quantitative in situ analysis (i.e., in tissue sections) of immune cells remains challenging due to a lack of objective methodology. Laser scanning cytometry (LSC) is an imaging-based methodology that performs quantitative measurements on fluorescently and/or chromatically stained tissue or cellular specimens at a single-cell level. In this study, we have developed a novel objective method for analysis of immune cells, including Foxp3(+) T regulatory cells (Tregs), on formalin-fixed /paraffin-embedded (FFPE) transplant biopsy sections using iCys (R) Research Imaging Cytometer. The development of multiple immunofluorescent staining was established using FFPE human tonsil sample. The CD4/CD8 ratio and the population of Tregs among CD4(+) cells were analyzed using iCys and compared with the results from conventional flow cytometry analysis (FCM). Our multiple immunofluorescent staining techniques allow obtaining clear staining on FFPE sections. The CD4/CD8 ratio analyzed by iCys was concordant with those obtained by FCM. This method was also applicable for liver, small intestine, kidney, pancreas, and heart transplant biopsy sections and provide an objective quantification of Tregs within the grafts.

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

4.5
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