Since preanalytic lysing of erythrocytes remains critical in flow cytometry, we investigated the influence of four lysing procedures on the quantification of leukocyte and CD34+ cells in hematopoietic cell transplants (HCTs). Samples were derived from stem cell–enriched mobilized whole blood collected by apheresis (unselected) and immunologically purified stem cell products (selected) and were measured using the dual‐platform (2‐PF) method with two flow cytometric systems. Additionally, cells were measured by a volume‐based technique (single platform (1‐PF)). Results were identical in the 2‐PF mode (unselected HCTs, r = 0.998; selected HCTs, r = 0.999). In comparison with the 2‐PF results, the single‐platform (1‐PF) measurements revealed a mean decrease of 59.5% for CD34+ cells (50.8% for CD45+ cells) in unselected HCTs and a mean decrease of 52% for CD34+ cells (49.8% for CD45+ cells) in selected HCTs. In order to check the accuracy of cell quantification using the 1‐PF method, leukocyte reference values from hematology counter results were compared with flow cytometric (1‐PF)–counted nucleated cells. That analysis revealed good congruency, with r = 0.998 for unselected HCTs and r = 0.999 for selected HCTs. In conclusion, all lysing procedures that we used induced substantial loss of leukocytes and CD34+ cells. As demonstrated by the high accuracy of the 1‐PF technique, all erythrocyte lysing procedures caused significant cell loss, which led to inconsistent counting of CD34+ cells in nonvolumetric flow cytometric (2‐PF) protocols.
Stem Cells – Wiley
Published: Mar 1, 2006
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.
Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Hi guys, I cannot tell you how much I love this resource. Incredible. I really believe you've hit the nail on the head with this site in regards to solving the research-purchase issue.”Daniel C.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud
“I must say, @deepdyve is a fabulous solution to the independent researcher's problem of #access to #information.”@deepthiw
“My last article couldn't be possible without the platform @deepdyve that makes journal papers cheaper.”@JoseServera