背景:循环内皮细胞(CEC)已被确定为多种疾病中血管损伤的标志物,比如心肌梗塞,血管炎,和移植。CD146驱动的免疫磁性分离得到了广泛的应用,但是由于缺乏CEC的定义以及缺乏对其枚举的共识,该技术受到阻碍。
目的:为了评估影响CEC免疫磁性分离的几个变量,为CEC制定定义,并为其枚举提出共识协议。
方法:我们设计了基于CD146驱动的免疫磁性分离和随后的Ulex-Europaeus-Lectin-1染色的确认步骤的方案。在一个多中心的努力中,我们评估了该方案的分析前和分析阶段.我们评估了储存的效果,抗凝和密度离心,并整理了以前使用此技术的经验。
结果:我们的方案允许以可接受的再现性明确鉴定CEC。存在储存时间的影响,因为在4°C下储存24小时期间,中位细胞数降至其基线值的仅87.5%。储存4小时后,柠檬酸盐的回收率低于乙二胺四乙酸;密度离心也与较低的回收率相关。我们提供了完整的技术建议和潜在陷阱清单。最后,根据我们对该协议的经验和最近的共识研讨会,我们为CEC制定了一个工作定义。
结论:我们的工作代表了就CEC达成共识的重要一步。我们的建议代表了三个主要中心的经验,现在应该由该领域的其他人进行审查。
BACKGROUND: Circulating endothelial cells (CECs) have been identified as markers of vascular damage in a variety of disorders, such as myocardial infarction, vasculitis, and transplantation. CD146-driven immunomagnetic isolation has gained widespread use, but the technique is hampered by the lack of a definition of CECs and the absence of a
consensus for their enumeration.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate several variables influencing immunomagnetic isolation of CECs, formulate a definition for CECs and propose a
consensus protocol for their enumeration.
METHODS: We devised a protocol based on CD146-driven immunomagnetic isolation and a subsequent confirmatory step with Ulex-Europaeus-Lectin-1 staining. In a multi-center effort, we evaluated the preanalytical and analytical phases of this protocol. We evaluated the effects of storage, anticoagulation and density centrifugation, and compiled previous experience with this technique.
RESULTS: Our protocol permitted unequivocal identification of CECs with acceptable reproducibility. There was an effect of storage time in that median cell numbers declined to only 87.5% of their baseline values during 24 h of storage at 4 degrees C. Recovery was lower with citrate than with ethylene-diamine tetra-acetic acid after 4 h of storage; density centrifugation was also associated with lower recovery. We provide a comprehensive list of technical recommendations and potential pitfalls. Finally, based on our experience with this protocol and a recent
consensus workshop, we formulated a working definition for CECs.
CONCLUSIONS: Our work represents an important step toward
consensus regarding the CECs. Our recommendations represent the experience of three major centers and should now be scrutinized by others in the field.