Cargando…

Optimal whole blood dilution protocol for preprocessing samples prior to circulating tumor cell capture by size‐based isolation

BACKGROUND: This study compared whole blood dilution versus density gradient centrifugation for pre‐processing blood samples prior to circulating tumor cell (CTC) capture on the efficiency of CTC separation by size‐based isolation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Whole blood from a healthy volunteer spiked w...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fu, Tianhao, Li, Sheng, Wei, Liang, Huang, Shaoyi, Xue, Yan, Cui, Kai
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9279958/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35657145
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcla.24524
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: This study compared whole blood dilution versus density gradient centrifugation for pre‐processing blood samples prior to circulating tumor cell (CTC) capture on the efficiency of CTC separation by size‐based isolation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Whole blood from a healthy volunteer spiked with SKBR3 cells was used to optimize the whole blood dilution protocol for sample volume, dilution ratio, and paraformaldehyde (PFA) concentration. Whole blood from healthy volunteers spiked with SKBR3, A549, or PC3 cells, and whole blood from patients with advanced gastric, esophageal, or liver cancer, was used to compare pre‐processing by the optimal whole blood dilution protocol with density‐gradient centrifugation. All statistical evaluations were performed using Student t test of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS version 17.0). RESULTS: In blood samples from healthy volunteers, spiked SKBR3 cell recovery rates were highest in 5 ml of whole blood, diluted with 2.5 ml buffer, and fixed with 0.2% PFA, and spiked SKBR3, A549, and PC3 cell recovery rates from 5 ml whole blood were significantly greater when using the optimized whole blood dilution protocol (87.67% ± 1.76%, 79.50% ± 0.50% and 71.83% ± 1.04%, respectively) compared to density‐gradient centrifugation (46.83 ± 1.76%, 37.00 ± 1.50% and 41.00 ± 1.50%, respectively).