Cargando…

Considerations for high-yield, high-throughput cell enrichment: fluorescence versus magnetic sorting

Efficient sorting methods are required for the isolation of cellular subpopulations in basic science and translational applications. Despite this, throughputs, yields, viabilities, and processing times of common sorting methods like fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) and magnetic-activated c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sutermaster, Bryan A., Darling, Eric M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6338736/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30659223
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-36698-1
_version_ 1783388482533588992
author Sutermaster, Bryan A.
Darling, Eric M.
author_facet Sutermaster, Bryan A.
Darling, Eric M.
author_sort Sutermaster, Bryan A.
collection PubMed
description Efficient sorting methods are required for the isolation of cellular subpopulations in basic science and translational applications. Despite this, throughputs, yields, viabilities, and processing times of common sorting methods like fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) and magnetic-activated cell sorting (MACS) are underreported. In the current study, we set out to quantify the ability of these sorting methods to separate defined mixtures of alkaline phosphatase liver/bone/kidney (ALPL)-expressing and non-expressing cell types. Results showed that initial MACS runs performed using manufacturer’s recommended antibody and microbead concentrations produced inaccurate ALPL+ vs. ALPL− cell splits compared to FACS when ALPL+ cells were present in larger proportions (>~25%). Accuracy at all proportions could be achieved by using substantially higher concentrations of labeling reagents. Importantly, MACS sorts resulted in only 7–9% cell loss compared to ~70% cell loss for FACS. Additionally, MACS processing was 4–6 times faster than FACS for single, low proportion samples but took similar time for single, high-proportion samples. When processing multiple samples, MACS was always faster overall due to its ability to run samples in parallel. Average cell viability for all groups remained high (>83%), regardless of sorting method. Despite requiring substantial optimization, the ability of MACS to isolate increased cell numbers in less time than FACS may prove valuable in both basic science and translational, cell-based applications.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6338736
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63387362019-01-22 Considerations for high-yield, high-throughput cell enrichment: fluorescence versus magnetic sorting Sutermaster, Bryan A. Darling, Eric M. Sci Rep Article Efficient sorting methods are required for the isolation of cellular subpopulations in basic science and translational applications. Despite this, throughputs, yields, viabilities, and processing times of common sorting methods like fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) and magnetic-activated cell sorting (MACS) are underreported. In the current study, we set out to quantify the ability of these sorting methods to separate defined mixtures of alkaline phosphatase liver/bone/kidney (ALPL)-expressing and non-expressing cell types. Results showed that initial MACS runs performed using manufacturer’s recommended antibody and microbead concentrations produced inaccurate ALPL+ vs. ALPL− cell splits compared to FACS when ALPL+ cells were present in larger proportions (>~25%). Accuracy at all proportions could be achieved by using substantially higher concentrations of labeling reagents. Importantly, MACS sorts resulted in only 7–9% cell loss compared to ~70% cell loss for FACS. Additionally, MACS processing was 4–6 times faster than FACS for single, low proportion samples but took similar time for single, high-proportion samples. When processing multiple samples, MACS was always faster overall due to its ability to run samples in parallel. Average cell viability for all groups remained high (>83%), regardless of sorting method. Despite requiring substantial optimization, the ability of MACS to isolate increased cell numbers in less time than FACS may prove valuable in both basic science and translational, cell-based applications. Nature Publishing Group UK 2019-01-18 /pmc/articles/PMC6338736/ /pubmed/30659223 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-36698-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Article
Sutermaster, Bryan A.
Darling, Eric M.
Considerations for high-yield, high-throughput cell enrichment: fluorescence versus magnetic sorting
title Considerations for high-yield, high-throughput cell enrichment: fluorescence versus magnetic sorting
title_full Considerations for high-yield, high-throughput cell enrichment: fluorescence versus magnetic sorting
title_fullStr Considerations for high-yield, high-throughput cell enrichment: fluorescence versus magnetic sorting
title_full_unstemmed Considerations for high-yield, high-throughput cell enrichment: fluorescence versus magnetic sorting
title_short Considerations for high-yield, high-throughput cell enrichment: fluorescence versus magnetic sorting
title_sort considerations for high-yield, high-throughput cell enrichment: fluorescence versus magnetic sorting
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6338736/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30659223
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-36698-1
work_keys_str_mv AT sutermasterbryana considerationsforhighyieldhighthroughputcellenrichmentfluorescenceversusmagneticsorting
AT darlingericm considerationsforhighyieldhighthroughputcellenrichmentfluorescenceversusmagneticsorting