Cytometry. Part B, Clinical cytometry · 2006
Use of a blocking antibody method for the flow cytometric measurement of ZAP-70 in B-CLL.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shenkin Mark, Maiese Russell
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In this study we developed a method to measure the amount of ZAP-70 [zeta accessory protein] in B-CLL cells without relying on the ZAP-70 expression of patient B or T cells to normalize fluorescence intensity.
METHODS: B-CLL cells were fixed with formaldehyde before surface staining with gating antibodies CD19PC5 and CD5FITC. The cells were permeabilized with saponin, and the ZAP-70 antigen was blocked in one tube with unlabeled antibody to ZAP-70 [clone 1E7.2]. Zap-70-PE was then added to this tube. ZAP-70-PE was added to a second tube without unlabeled antibody to ZAP-70. The mean fluorescence intensity of the ZAP-70 in the tube without unlabeled antibody divided by the mean fluorescence intensity of the ZAP-70 in the tube with unlabeled antibody equals the RATIO of total fluorescence to non-specific ZAP-70 fluorescence in the B-CLL cells. In a second method of analysis, a region is created in the histogram showing ZAP-70 fluorescence intensity in the tube with unlabeled antibody to ZAP-70. This region is set to 0.9% positive cells. This same region is then used to measure the % positive [%POS] ZAP-70 cells in the tube without unlabeled antibody to ZAP-70. The brighter the ZAP-70 fluorescence above the non-specific background, the higher the %POS.
RESULTS: Due to the varying amount of non-specific staining between patient B-CLL cells and other cells, the blocking antibody method yielded a more quantitative and reproducible measure of ZAP-70 in B-CLL cells than other methods, which use the ratio of B-CLL fluorescence to normal B or T-cell fluorescence. Using this improved method, ZAP-70 was determined to be negative if the RATIO was less than 2:1 and positive if the RATIO was greater than 2:1. ZAP-70 was determined to be negative if the %POS was less than 5% and positive if the %POS was greater than 5%, a cut-off value lower than previous values published, due to exclusion of non-specific staining. Both cut-offs were based upon patient specimen distribution profiling.
CONCLUSIONS: Use of a blocking antibody resulted in a robust, reproducible clinical B-CLL assay that is not influenced by the need to measure the amount of ZAP-70 in other cells. ZAP-70 results segre gate patients into indolent and aggressive groups suggested by published clinical outcomes.
METHODS: B-CLL cells were fixed with formaldehyde before surface staining with gating antibodies CD19PC5 and CD5FITC. The cells were permeabilized with saponin, and the ZAP-70 antigen was blocked in one tube with unlabeled antibody to ZAP-70 [clone 1E7.2]. Zap-70-PE was then added to this tube. ZAP-70-PE was added to a second tube without unlabeled antibody to ZAP-70. The mean fluorescence intensity of the ZAP-70 in the tube without unlabeled antibody divided by the mean fluorescence intensity of the ZAP-70 in the tube with unlabeled antibody equals the RATIO of total fluorescence to non-specific ZAP-70 fluorescence in the B-CLL cells. In a second method of analysis, a region is created in the histogram showing ZAP-70 fluorescence intensity in the tube with unlabeled antibody to ZAP-70. This region is set to 0.9% positive cells. This same region is then used to measure the % positive [%POS] ZAP-70 cells in the tube without unlabeled antibody to ZAP-70. The brighter the ZAP-70 fluorescence above the non-specific background, the higher the %POS.
RESULTS: Due to the varying amount of non-specific staining between patient B-CLL cells and other cells, the blocking antibody method yielded a more quantitative and reproducible measure of ZAP-70 in B-CLL cells than other methods, which use the ratio of B-CLL fluorescence to normal B or T-cell fluorescence. Using this improved method, ZAP-70 was determined to be negative if the RATIO was less than 2:1 and positive if the RATIO was greater than 2:1. ZAP-70 was determined to be negative if the %POS was less than 5% and positive if the %POS was greater than 5%, a cut-off value lower than previous values published, due to exclusion of non-specific staining. Both cut-offs were based upon patient specimen distribution profiling.
CONCLUSIONS: Use of a blocking antibody resulted in a robust, reproducible clinical B-CLL assay that is not influenced by the need to measure the amount of ZAP-70 in other cells. ZAP-70 results segre gate patients into indolent and aggressive groups suggested by published clinical outcomes.