Evaluation of red blood cell lysing solutions in the study of neutrophil oxidative burst by the DCFH assay
원문보기
Cytometry ,
v.43 no.4 ,
2001년, pp.290 - 296
Vuorte, J.
(Department of Medicine, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland)
,
Jansson, S.-E.
(Department of Clinical Chemistry, University of Helsinki, and Laboratory Department, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland)
,
Repo, H.
(Department of Medicine, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland)
BackgroundNeutrophil subpopulations with enhanced oxidative reactivity have been described in a number of clinical and in vitro settings. In the dichlorofluorescin (DCFH) oxidation assay, it is essential to maintain cellular viability and plasma membrane integrity through all stages of sample prepar...
BackgroundNeutrophil subpopulations with enhanced oxidative reactivity have been described in a number of clinical and in vitro settings. In the dichlorofluorescin (DCFH) oxidation assay, it is essential to maintain cellular viability and plasma membrane integrity through all stages of sample preparation. The process of erythrocyte lysing is crucial because a number of commercial lysing reagents can increase leukocyte membrane permeability.MethodsWe assessed viability [propidium iodide (PI) method], DCFH oxidation, and CD11b expression of resting or in vitro–stimulated neutrophils exposed to six different red cell lysing procedures.ResultsFormaldehyde-containing reagents (Optilyse B, FACS Lyse, and Erythrolyse) but not hypotonic shock or ammonium chloride (NH4Cl) solutions rendered 91.4–99.8% of resting neutrophils PI positive, with concomitant reductions in dichlorofluorescein (DCF) fluorescence, suggesting efflux of the fluorochrome. However, when stimulated with N-formyl-methionyl-leucyl-phenylalanine or Yersinia enterocolitica and then treated with FACS Lyse or Erythrolyse, up to 69.9% of neutrophils remained PI negative and exhibited enhanced DCF fluorescence. CD11b expression of PI-positive and -negative neutrophils was comparable, suggesting that they were activated equally.ConclusionsFACS Lyse and Erythrolyse can modify neutrophil plasma membrane integrity, whereas hypotonic shock and NH4Cl solutions retain cellular viability and are lysing methods of choice in evaluation of neutrophil respiratory burst by DCFH oxidation assay. Cytometry 43:290–296, 2001. © 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
BackgroundNeutrophil subpopulations with enhanced oxidative reactivity have been described in a number of clinical and in vitro settings. In the dichlorofluorescin (DCFH) oxidation assay, it is essential to maintain cellular viability and plasma membrane integrity through all stages of sample preparation. The process of erythrocyte lysing is crucial because a number of commercial lysing reagents can increase leukocyte membrane permeability.MethodsWe assessed viability [propidium iodide (PI) method], DCFH oxidation, and CD11b expression of resting or in vitro–stimulated neutrophils exposed to six different red cell lysing procedures.ResultsFormaldehyde-containing reagents (Optilyse B, FACS Lyse, and Erythrolyse) but not hypotonic shock or ammonium chloride (NH4Cl) solutions rendered 91.4–99.8% of resting neutrophils PI positive, with concomitant reductions in dichlorofluorescein (DCF) fluorescence, suggesting efflux of the fluorochrome. However, when stimulated with N-formyl-methionyl-leucyl-phenylalanine or Yersinia enterocolitica and then treated with FACS Lyse or Erythrolyse, up to 69.9% of neutrophils remained PI negative and exhibited enhanced DCF fluorescence. CD11b expression of PI-positive and -negative neutrophils was comparable, suggesting that they were activated equally.ConclusionsFACS Lyse and Erythrolyse can modify neutrophil plasma membrane integrity, whereas hypotonic shock and NH4Cl solutions retain cellular viability and are lysing methods of choice in evaluation of neutrophil respiratory burst by DCFH oxidation assay. Cytometry 43:290–296, 2001. © 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
주제어
참고문헌 (35)
Blood Babior 64 959 1984 10.1182/blood.V64.5.959.959
J Infect Dis Clark 179 309 1999 10.1086/513849
J Immunol Bass 130 1910 1983 10.4049/jimmunol.130.4.1910
Infect Immunol Steed 60 2101 1992 10.1128/IAI.60.5.2101-2105.1992
J Immunol Methods Smith 162 261 1993 10.1016/0022-1759(93)90391-J
J Leuk Biol Rothe 47 440 1990 10.1002/jlb.47.5.440
Scand J Immunol Vuorte 43 329 1996 10.1046/j.1365-3083.1996.d01-45.x
Diagn Clin Immunol Trinkle 5 62 1987
Cytometry Himmelfarb 13 83 1992 10.1002/cyto.990130113
Infect Immunol Elbim 62 2195 1994 10.1128/IAI.62.6.2195-2201.1994
J Immunol Vuorte 162 2352 1999 10.4049/jimmunol.162.4.2353
Am J Pathol Haslett 119 101 1985
J Immunol Methods Repo 164 193 1993 10.1016/0022-1759(93)90312-U
Histochemistry Puchtler 82 201 1985 10.1007/BF00501395
Cytometry Tiirikainen 20 341 1995 10.1002/cyto.990200410
Physiol Rev Omann 67 285 1987 10.1152/physrev.1987.67.1.285
J Clin Invest Junger 101 2768 1998 10.1172/JCI1354
J Immunol Repo 159 943 1997 10.4049/jimmunol.159.2.943
Infect Immunol Tertti 56 1295 1988 10.1128/IAI.56.5.1295-1300.1988
J Immunol Methods Repo 185 65 1995 10.1016/0022-1759(95)00105-J
Cytometry Sasaki 8 413 1987 10.1002/cyto.990080411
J Clin Invest Sengelov 92 1467 1993 10.1172/JCI116724
Leukemia Groeneveld 10 1383 1996
Cytometry Lanza 30 134 1997 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0320(19970615)30:3<134::AID-CYTO4>3.0.CO;2-L
Semin Cell Biol Downey 6 345 1995 10.1016/S1043-4682(05)80005-4
Eur J Haematol Demaurex 51 309 1993 10.1111/j.1600-0609.1993.tb01613.x
Histochemistry Puchtler 82 201 1985 10.1007/BF00501395
Blood Gallin 63 977 1984 10.1182/blood.V63.5.977.977
J Leuk Biol Smith 56 672 1994 10.1002/jlb.56.6.672
J Immunol Bass 136 860 1986 10.4049/jimmunol.136.3.860
Am Rev Respir Dis Chollet-Martin 146 990 1992 10.1164/ajrccm/146.4.990
Clin Immunol Immunopathol Kaffenberger 64 57 1992 10.1016/0090-1229(92)90059-W
Blood Elbim 82 633 1993 10.1182/blood.V82.2.633.633
Immunology Daniels 82 465 1994
Hematol Cell Ther Elbim 38 527 1996 10.1007/s00282-996-0527-5
더보기
AI-Helper
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.