Cargando…
Full spectrum flow cytometry and mass cytometry: A 32‐marker panel comparison
High‐dimensional single‐cell data has become an important tool in unraveling the complexity of the immune system and its involvement in homeostasis and a large array of pathologies. As technological tools are developed, researchers are adopting them to answer increasingly complex biological question...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9790709/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35593221 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cyto.a.24565 |
_version_ | 1784859240435810304 |
---|---|
author | Jaimes, Maria C. Leipold, Michael Kraker, Geoffrey Amir, El‐ad Maecker, Holden Lannigan, Joanne |
author_facet | Jaimes, Maria C. Leipold, Michael Kraker, Geoffrey Amir, El‐ad Maecker, Holden Lannigan, Joanne |
author_sort | Jaimes, Maria C. |
collection | PubMed |
description | High‐dimensional single‐cell data has become an important tool in unraveling the complexity of the immune system and its involvement in homeostasis and a large array of pathologies. As technological tools are developed, researchers are adopting them to answer increasingly complex biological questions. Up until recently, mass cytometry (MC) has been the main technology employed in cytometric assays requiring more than 29 markers. Recently, however, with the introduction of full spectrum flow cytometry (FSFC), it has become possible to break the fluorescence barrier and go beyond 29 fluorescent parameters. In this study, in collaboration with the Stanford Human Immune Monitoring Center (HIMC), we compared five patient samples using an established immune panel developed by the HIMC using their MC platform. Using split samples and the same antibody panel, we were able to demonstrate highly comparable results between the two technologies using multiple data analysis approaches. We report here a direct comparison of two technology platforms (MC and FSFC) using a 32‐marker flow cytometric immune monitoring panel that can identify all the previously described and anticipated immune subpopulations defined by this panel. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9790709 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | John Wiley & Sons, Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-97907092022-12-28 Full spectrum flow cytometry and mass cytometry: A 32‐marker panel comparison Jaimes, Maria C. Leipold, Michael Kraker, Geoffrey Amir, El‐ad Maecker, Holden Lannigan, Joanne Cytometry A Brief Report High‐dimensional single‐cell data has become an important tool in unraveling the complexity of the immune system and its involvement in homeostasis and a large array of pathologies. As technological tools are developed, researchers are adopting them to answer increasingly complex biological questions. Up until recently, mass cytometry (MC) has been the main technology employed in cytometric assays requiring more than 29 markers. Recently, however, with the introduction of full spectrum flow cytometry (FSFC), it has become possible to break the fluorescence barrier and go beyond 29 fluorescent parameters. In this study, in collaboration with the Stanford Human Immune Monitoring Center (HIMC), we compared five patient samples using an established immune panel developed by the HIMC using their MC platform. Using split samples and the same antibody panel, we were able to demonstrate highly comparable results between the two technologies using multiple data analysis approaches. We report here a direct comparison of two technology platforms (MC and FSFC) using a 32‐marker flow cytometric immune monitoring panel that can identify all the previously described and anticipated immune subpopulations defined by this panel. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2022-05-20 2022-11 /pmc/articles/PMC9790709/ /pubmed/35593221 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cyto.a.24565 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Cytometry Part A published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Society for Advancement of Cytometry. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Brief Report Jaimes, Maria C. Leipold, Michael Kraker, Geoffrey Amir, El‐ad Maecker, Holden Lannigan, Joanne Full spectrum flow cytometry and mass cytometry: A 32‐marker panel comparison |
title | Full spectrum flow cytometry and mass cytometry: A 32‐marker panel comparison |
title_full | Full spectrum flow cytometry and mass cytometry: A 32‐marker panel comparison |
title_fullStr | Full spectrum flow cytometry and mass cytometry: A 32‐marker panel comparison |
title_full_unstemmed | Full spectrum flow cytometry and mass cytometry: A 32‐marker panel comparison |
title_short | Full spectrum flow cytometry and mass cytometry: A 32‐marker panel comparison |
title_sort | full spectrum flow cytometry and mass cytometry: a 32‐marker panel comparison |
topic | Brief Report |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9790709/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35593221 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cyto.a.24565 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT jaimesmariac fullspectrumflowcytometryandmasscytometrya32markerpanelcomparison AT leipoldmichael fullspectrumflowcytometryandmasscytometrya32markerpanelcomparison AT krakergeoffrey fullspectrumflowcytometryandmasscytometrya32markerpanelcomparison AT amirelad fullspectrumflowcytometryandmasscytometrya32markerpanelcomparison AT maeckerholden fullspectrumflowcytometryandmasscytometrya32markerpanelcomparison AT lanniganjoanne fullspectrumflowcytometryandmasscytometrya32markerpanelcomparison |