Chen Shuiyu, Sun Yukun, Neoh Kuang Hong, Chen Anqi, Li Weiju, Yang Xiaorui, Han Ray P S
College of Engineering, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Peking University Hospital, Beijing, China.
PLoS One. 2017 Jul 13;12(7):e0181249. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0181249. eCollection 2017.
Circulating endothelial cells (CECs) are widely reported as a promising biomarker of endothelial damage/dysfunction in coronary artery disease (CAD). The two popular methods of CEC quantification include the use of immunomagnetic beads separation (IB) and flow cytometry analysis (FC); however, they suffer from two main shortcomings that affect their diagnostic and prognostic responses: non-specific bindings of magnetic beads to non-target cells and a high degree of variability in rare cell identification, respectively. We designed a microfluidic chip with spatially staggered micropillars for the efficient harvesting of CECs with intact cellular morphology in an attempt to revisit the diagnostic goal of CEC counts in CAD patients with angina pectoris.
A label-free microfluidic assay that involved an in-situ enumeration and immunofluorescent identification (DAPI+/CD146+/VEGFR1+/CD45-) of CECs was carried out to assess the CEC count in human peripheral blood samples. A total of 55 CAD patients with angina pectoris [16 with chronic stable angina (CSA) and 39 with unstable angina (UA)], together with 15 heathy controls (HCs) were enrolled in the study.
CEC counts are significantly higher in both CSA and UA groups compared to the HC group [respective medians of 6.9, 10.0 and 1.5 cells/ml (p < 0.01)]. Further, a significant elevation of CEC count was observed in the three UA subgroups [low risk (5.3) vs. intermediate risk (10.8) vs. high risk (18.0) cells/ml, p < 0.001) classified in accordance to the TIMI NSTEMI/UA risk score system. From the receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis, the AUCs for distinguishing CSA and UA from HC were 0.867 and 0.938, respectively. The corresponding sensitivities were 87.5% and 84.6% and the specificities were 66.7% and 86.7%, respectively.
Our microfluidic assay system is efficient and stable for CEC capture and enumeration. The results showed that the CEC count has the potential to be a promising clinical biomarker for the assessment of endothelial damage/dysfunction in CAD patients with angina pectoris.
循环内皮细胞(CECs)作为冠状动脉疾病(CAD)中内皮损伤/功能障碍的一种有前景的生物标志物,已被广泛报道。两种常用的CEC定量方法包括免疫磁珠分离法(IB)和流式细胞术分析法(FC);然而,它们存在两个主要缺点,分别影响其诊断和预后反应:磁珠与非靶细胞的非特异性结合以及罕见细胞识别中的高度变异性。我们设计了一种带有空间交错微柱的微流控芯片,用于高效捕获具有完整细胞形态的CECs,试图重新审视心绞痛CAD患者中CEC计数的诊断目标。
进行了一种无标记的微流控检测,包括对CECs进行原位计数和免疫荧光鉴定(DAPI+/CD146+/VEGFR1+/CD45-),以评估人类外周血样本中的CEC计数。共有55例心绞痛CAD患者[16例慢性稳定型心绞痛(CSA)和39例不稳定型心绞痛(UA)]以及15例健康对照(HCs)纳入本研究。
与HC组相比,CSA组和UA组的CEC计数均显著更高[分别为6.9、10.0和1.5个细胞/毫升的中位数(p < 0.01)]。此外,根据TIMI NSTEMI/UA风险评分系统分类的三个UA亚组中,CEC计数显著升高[低风险(5.3)与中度风险(10.8)与高风险(18.0)个细胞/毫升,p < 0.001]。从受试者工作特征曲线分析来看,区分CSA和UA与HC的AUC分别为0.867和0.938。相应的敏感性分别为87.5%和84.6%,特异性分别为66.7%和86.7%。
我们的微流控检测系统对于CEC捕获和计数高效且稳定。结果表明,CEC计数有可能成为评估心绞痛CAD患者内皮损伤/功能障碍的一种有前景的临床生物标志物。