Cargando…

Functional comparison of PBMCs isolated by Cell Preparation Tubes (CPT) vs. Lymphoprep Tubes

BACKGROUND: Cryopreserved human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) are a commonly used sample type for a variety of immunological assays. Many factors can affect the quality of PBMCs, and careful consideration and validation of an appropriate PBMC isolation and cryopreservation method is imp...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chen, Han, Schürch, Christian M., Noble, Kevin, Kim, Kenneth, Krutzik, Peter O., O’Donnell, Erika, Vander Tuig, Jason, Nolan, Garry P., McIlwain, David R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7106580/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32228458
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12865-020-00345-0
_version_ 1783512636324839424
author Chen, Han
Schürch, Christian M.
Noble, Kevin
Kim, Kenneth
Krutzik, Peter O.
O’Donnell, Erika
Vander Tuig, Jason
Nolan, Garry P.
McIlwain, David R.
author_facet Chen, Han
Schürch, Christian M.
Noble, Kevin
Kim, Kenneth
Krutzik, Peter O.
O’Donnell, Erika
Vander Tuig, Jason
Nolan, Garry P.
McIlwain, David R.
author_sort Chen, Han
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Cryopreserved human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) are a commonly used sample type for a variety of immunological assays. Many factors can affect the quality of PBMCs, and careful consideration and validation of an appropriate PBMC isolation and cryopreservation method is important for well-designed clinical studies. A major point of divergence in PBMC isolation protocols is the collection of blood, either directly into vacutainers pre-filled with density gradient medium or the use of conical tubes containing a porous barrier to separate the density gradient medium from blood. To address potential differences in sample outcome, we isolated, cryopreserved, and compared PBMCs using parallel protocols differing only in the use of one of two common tube types for isolation. METHODS: Whole blood was processed in parallel using both Cell Preparation Tubes™ (CPT, BD Biosciences) and Lymphoprep™ Tubes (Axis-Shield) and assessed for yield and viability prior to cryopreservation. After thawing, samples were further examined by flow cytometry for cell yield, cell viability, frequency of 10 cell subsets, and capacity for stimulation-dependent CD4+ and CD8+ T cell intracellular cytokine production. RESULTS: No significant differences in cell recovery, viability, frequency of immune cell subsets, or T cell functionality between PBMC samples isolated using CPT or Lymphoprep tubes were identified. CONCLUSION: CPT and Lymphoprep tubes are effective and comparable methods for PBMC isolation for immunological studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7106580
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71065802020-04-01 Functional comparison of PBMCs isolated by Cell Preparation Tubes (CPT) vs. Lymphoprep Tubes Chen, Han Schürch, Christian M. Noble, Kevin Kim, Kenneth Krutzik, Peter O. O’Donnell, Erika Vander Tuig, Jason Nolan, Garry P. McIlwain, David R. BMC Immunol Methodology Article BACKGROUND: Cryopreserved human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) are a commonly used sample type for a variety of immunological assays. Many factors can affect the quality of PBMCs, and careful consideration and validation of an appropriate PBMC isolation and cryopreservation method is important for well-designed clinical studies. A major point of divergence in PBMC isolation protocols is the collection of blood, either directly into vacutainers pre-filled with density gradient medium or the use of conical tubes containing a porous barrier to separate the density gradient medium from blood. To address potential differences in sample outcome, we isolated, cryopreserved, and compared PBMCs using parallel protocols differing only in the use of one of two common tube types for isolation. METHODS: Whole blood was processed in parallel using both Cell Preparation Tubes™ (CPT, BD Biosciences) and Lymphoprep™ Tubes (Axis-Shield) and assessed for yield and viability prior to cryopreservation. After thawing, samples were further examined by flow cytometry for cell yield, cell viability, frequency of 10 cell subsets, and capacity for stimulation-dependent CD4+ and CD8+ T cell intracellular cytokine production. RESULTS: No significant differences in cell recovery, viability, frequency of immune cell subsets, or T cell functionality between PBMC samples isolated using CPT or Lymphoprep tubes were identified. CONCLUSION: CPT and Lymphoprep tubes are effective and comparable methods for PBMC isolation for immunological studies. BioMed Central 2020-03-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7106580/ /pubmed/32228458 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12865-020-00345-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis 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 licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence 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 licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Methodology Article
Chen, Han
Schürch, Christian M.
Noble, Kevin
Kim, Kenneth
Krutzik, Peter O.
O’Donnell, Erika
Vander Tuig, Jason
Nolan, Garry P.
McIlwain, David R.
Functional comparison of PBMCs isolated by Cell Preparation Tubes (CPT) vs. Lymphoprep Tubes
title Functional comparison of PBMCs isolated by Cell Preparation Tubes (CPT) vs. Lymphoprep Tubes
title_full Functional comparison of PBMCs isolated by Cell Preparation Tubes (CPT) vs. Lymphoprep Tubes
title_fullStr Functional comparison of PBMCs isolated by Cell Preparation Tubes (CPT) vs. Lymphoprep Tubes
title_full_unstemmed Functional comparison of PBMCs isolated by Cell Preparation Tubes (CPT) vs. Lymphoprep Tubes
title_short Functional comparison of PBMCs isolated by Cell Preparation Tubes (CPT) vs. Lymphoprep Tubes
title_sort functional comparison of pbmcs isolated by cell preparation tubes (cpt) vs. lymphoprep tubes
topic Methodology Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7106580/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32228458
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12865-020-00345-0
work_keys_str_mv AT chenhan functionalcomparisonofpbmcsisolatedbycellpreparationtubescptvslymphopreptubes
AT schurchchristianm functionalcomparisonofpbmcsisolatedbycellpreparationtubescptvslymphopreptubes
AT noblekevin functionalcomparisonofpbmcsisolatedbycellpreparationtubescptvslymphopreptubes
AT kimkenneth functionalcomparisonofpbmcsisolatedbycellpreparationtubescptvslymphopreptubes
AT krutzikpetero functionalcomparisonofpbmcsisolatedbycellpreparationtubescptvslymphopreptubes
AT odonnellerika functionalcomparisonofpbmcsisolatedbycellpreparationtubescptvslymphopreptubes
AT vandertuigjason functionalcomparisonofpbmcsisolatedbycellpreparationtubescptvslymphopreptubes
AT nolangarryp functionalcomparisonofpbmcsisolatedbycellpreparationtubescptvslymphopreptubes
AT mcilwaindavidr functionalcomparisonofpbmcsisolatedbycellpreparationtubescptvslymphopreptubes