Comparison of two single-platform ISHAGE-based CD34 enumeration protocols on BD FACSCalibur and FACSCanto flow cytometers

Clinical Flow Cytometry Laboratory, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Cytotherapy (Impact Factor: 3.29). 06/2009; 11(5):595-605. DOI: 10.1080/14653240902923161
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Enumeration of viable CD34(+) cells provides critical information for the bone marrow (BM) transplant physician. The single-platform ISHAGE protocol is the most reliable method currently available to quantitate accurately this important subset of cells. Previous studies have shown that 5 CD34(+) cells/microL blood predicts the collection of at least 0.5x10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg patient weight. From the apheresis product, infusion of 2.5x10(6) viable CD34(+) cells (measured pre-cryopreservation)/kg patient weight will reliably permit engraftment of the hematopoietic system (as measured by the time to 20000 platelets/microL) by day 12-14 post-infusion.
We compared the CD34(+) cell numbers derived from Flow Count-based Stem-Kit; (Beckman Coulter) and Trucount tube-based stem cell enumeration (SCE) kit (BD Biosciences) ISHAGE templates on BD FACSCalibur and BD FACSCanto cytometers on 12 granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)-mobilized peripheral blood (MPB) and 10 peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) samples.
Comparison of results showed that there was no statistical difference between samples run with Stem-Kit on the FACSCalibur versus SCE kit-based assays on either the FACSCalibur or FACSCanto. Mean results for the Stem-Kit/Calibur combination were 137, for SCE kit/Calibur 140 and for SCE kit/Canto 137 cells/microL. Pair-wise comparison of data based on rank order showed no statistically significant difference and all correlation coefficients had an R(2)>0.98.
The two kits generated very similar data on a range of fresh samples regardless of instrument platform. These results confirm and extend the utility of the single-platform ISHAGE protocols with a variety of reagent kits and instrument platforms.

546 Reads
  • Source
    • "For those acquiring flow data with the use of automated software, it is essential that the cytometrist be aware of the potential presence of subsets of CD34 þ cells that play no documented role in engraftment. The auto-software itself cannot distinguish such subsets from candidate engrafting phenotypes, and, in such cases, manual analysis (performed after acquisition of data) is essential [9]. "
    Cytotherapy 03/2015; 17(5). DOI:10.1016/j.jcyt.2015.02.013 · 3.29 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Blood count was analyzed before and after apheresis from peripheral blood using a hematology analyzer (Sysmex , Norderstedt, Germany). CD34+ cells were counted in pre-and post-apheresis peripheral blood samples as well as in a product sample by flow cytometry using a commercially available single-platform assay (BD stem cell enumeration kit, BectonDickinson, Heidelberg, Germany) [11] [12]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Three different apheresis systems were used in our center for the collection of peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPCs): COM.TEC (Fresenius Healthcare), COBE Spectra, and Spectra Optia (both from Caridian BCT). We compared 131 autologous and 56 allogeneic apheresis procedures to elucidate feasibility and effectiveness of the different systems. Collection efficiacy varied significantly with lowest results obtained with COBE Spectra. COM.TEC and Spectra Optia produced lower WBC contamination than COBE Spectra, but at the expense of higher product volume and longer apheresis time. High collection efficacy and a low product volume may be favorable characteristics of the Spectra Optia.
    Transfusion and Apheresis Science 07/2013; 49(3). DOI:10.1016/j.transci.2013.06.002 · 0.77 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Using this approach a population of small Lin−CD45− cells with the lower possible number of haematopoietic contaminants could be isolated, with the main contaminant being platelets. These events are normally excluded using flow cytometry-based protocols for HSC [4], [19], [20]. Therefore, during our analysis a gating strategy based on that proposed by Zuba-Surma et al. [4] was employed. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Human umbilical cord blood (hUCB) has been proposed to contain not only haematopoietic stem cells, but also a rare pluripotent embryonic-like stem cell (ELSc) population that is negative for hematopoietic markers (Lin(-)CD45(-)) and expresses markers typical of pluripotent cells. The aim of this work was to isolate, characterise and expand this ELSc fraction from hUCB, as it may provide a valuable cell source for regenerative medicine applications. We found that we could indeed isolate a Lin(-)CD45(-) population of small cells (3-10 µm diameter) with a high nucleus to cytoplasm ratio that expressed the stem cell markers CD34 and CXCR4. However, in contrast to some previous reports, this fraction was not positive for CD133. Furthermore, although these cells expressed transcripts typical of pluripotent cells, such as SOX2, OCT3/4, and NANOG, they were not able to proliferate in any of the culture media known to support stem cell growth that we tested. Further analysis of the Lin(-)CD45(-) population by flow cytometry showed the presence of a Lin(-)CD45(-)Nestin(+) population that were also positive for CD34 (20%) but negative for CXCR4. These data suggest that the Lin(-)CD45(-) stem cell fraction present in the cord blood represents a small heterogeneous population with phenotypic characteristics of stem cells, including a Lin(-)CD45(-)Nestin(+) population not previously described. This study also suggests that heterogeneity within the Lin(-)CD45(-) cell fraction is the likely explanation for differences in the hUCB cell populations described by different groups that were isolated using different methods. These populations have been widely called "embryonic-like stem cell" on the basis of their phenotypical similarity to embryonic stem cells. However, the fact they do not seem to be able to self-renew casts some doubt on their identity, and warns against defining them as "embryonic-like stem cell" at this stage.
    PLoS ONE 06/2013; 8(6):e67968. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0067968 · 3.23 Impact Factor
Show more