Son Kiho, Mukherjee Manali, McIntyre Brendan A S, Eguez Jose C, Radford Katherine, LaVigne Nicola, Ethier Caroline, Davoine Francis, Janssen Luke, Lacy Paige, Nair Parameswaran
Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
J Immunol Methods. 2017 Oct;449:44-55. doi: 10.1016/j.jim.2017.06.005. Epub 2017 Jun 21.
Clinically relevant and reliable reports derived from in vitro research are dependent on the choice of cell isolation protocols adopted between different laboratories. Peripheral blood eosinophils are conventionally isolated using density-gradient centrifugation followed by immunomagnetic selection (positive/negative) while neutrophils follow a more simplified dextran-sedimentation methodology. With the increasing sophistication of molecular techniques, methods are now available that promise protocols with reduced user-manipulations, improved efficiency, and better yield without compromising the purity of enriched cell populations. These recent techniques utilize immunomagnetic particles with multiple specificities against differential cell surface markers to negatively select non-target cells from whole blood, greatly reducing the cost/time taken to isolate granulocytes. Herein, we compare the yield efficiencies, purity and baseline activation states of eosinophils/neutrophils isolated using one of these newer protocols that use immunomagnetic beads (MACSxpress isolation) vs. the standard isolation procedures. The study shows that the MACSxpress method consistently allowed higher yields per mL of peripheral blood compared to conventional methods (P<0.001, n=8, Wilcoxon paired test), with high isolation purities for both eosinophils (95.0±1.7%) and neutrophils (94.2±10.1%) assessed by two methods: Wright's staining and flow cytometry. In addition, enumeration of CD63 (marker for eosinophil activation) and CD66b (marker for neutrophil activation) cells within freshly isolated granulocytes, respectively, confirmed that conventional protocols using density-gradient centrifugation caused cellular activation of the granulocytes at baseline compared to the MACSxpress method. In conclusion, MACSxpress isolation kits were found to be superior to conventional techniques for consistent purifications of eosinophils and neutrophils that were suitable for activation assays involving degranulation markers.
体外研究得出的具有临床相关性和可靠性的报告取决于不同实验室所采用的细胞分离方案。外周血嗜酸性粒细胞传统上采用密度梯度离心法,随后进行免疫磁选(阳性/阴性)来分离,而中性粒细胞则采用更为简化的葡聚糖沉降法。随着分子技术日益复杂,现在有一些方法有望实现减少用户操作、提高效率并获得更好产量的方案,同时又不影响富集细胞群体的纯度。这些最新技术利用针对不同细胞表面标志物具有多种特异性的免疫磁珠,从全血中阴性选择非靶细胞,大大降低了分离粒细胞所需的成本/时间。在此,我们比较了使用其中一种采用免疫磁珠的新方案(MACSxpress分离法)与标准分离程序分离的嗜酸性粒细胞/中性粒细胞的产量效率、纯度和基线激活状态。研究表明,与传统方法相比,MACSxpress方法每毫升外周血的产量始终更高(P<0.001,n = 8,Wilcoxon配对检验),通过瑞氏染色和流式细胞术两种方法评估,嗜酸性粒细胞(95.0±1.7%)和中性粒细胞(94.2±10.1%)的分离纯度都很高。此外,分别对新鲜分离的粒细胞中CD63(嗜酸性粒细胞激活标志物)和CD66b(中性粒细胞激活标志物)细胞进行计数,证实与MACSxpress方法相比,使用密度梯度离心的传统方案在基线时会导致粒细胞的细胞激活。总之,发现MACSxpress分离试剂盒在一致纯化嗜酸性粒细胞和中性粒细胞方面优于传统技术,这些细胞适用于涉及脱颗粒标志物的激活试验。