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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jaimes, Maria C., Leipold, Michael, Kraker, Geoffrey, Amir, El‐ad, Maecker, Holden, Lannigan, Joanne
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