首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
检索        

ProCOUNT与单平台ISHAGE方法检测外周血及采集物中CD34~+细胞绝对计数的比较
引用本文:万岁桂,苏力,孙雪静,冀冰心,刘聪艳,贺景娟,徐娟,田丁.ProCOUNT与单平台ISHAGE方法检测外周血及采集物中CD34~+细胞绝对计数的比较[J].首都医学院学报,2006,27(4):504-508.
作者姓名:万岁桂  苏力  孙雪静  冀冰心  刘聪艳  贺景娟  徐娟  田丁
作者单位:首都医科大学宣武医院血液科,首都医科大学宣武医院血液科,首都医科大学宣武医院血液科,首都医科大学宣武医院血液科,首都医科大学宣武医院血液科,首都医科大学宣武医院血液科,首都医科大学宣武医院血液科,首都医科大学宣武医院血液科
摘    要:目的评估ProCOUNT方法和单平台ISHAGE方法检测外周血及其采集物中CD34+细胞绝对计数的优缺点。方法采用流式细胞仪ProCOUNT方法和单平台ISHAGE方法,对23份动员外周血及50份采集物行CD34+细胞绝对计数,并对2种方法所得的结果进行Spearman相关分析和配对t检验。结果Spearman相关分析结果:ProCOUNT方法和单平台ISHAGE方法所得的CD34+细胞绝对数、CD34+细胞百分比高度相关(r均>0.9,P均<0.001)。配对t检验分析结果:ProCOUNT方法和单平台ISHAGE方法检测动员外周血的CD34+细胞绝对数分别为(42.7±7.5)μL-1和(52.1±7.2)μL-1(P<0.01),CD34+细胞百分比分别为(0.26±0.07)%和(0.13±0.05)%(P<0.01);检测采集物中CD34+细胞绝对数分别为(3 515.2±684.7)μL-1和(3 923.8±711.1)μL-1(P<0.01),CD34+细胞百分比分别为(0.79±0.18)%和(0.83±0.17)%(P=0.056)。ProCOUNT方法所得的结果均低于单平台ISHAGE方法所得的结果。结论ProCOUNT方法和单平台ISHAGE方法检测CD34+细胞绝对计数和百分比所得结果具有高度相关性,但前者所得结果要低于后者。

关 键 词:ProCOUNT方法  ISHAGE方法  流式细胞术  CD34+细胞
收稿时间:2005-04-04
修稿时间:2005年4月4日

Comparison of ProCOUNT and Single-platform ISHAGE Gating Strategy for Enumeration of CD34 Positive Cells in Peripheral Blood and Apheresis Samples
Wan Suigui,Su Li,Sun Xuejing,Ji Bingxin,Liu Congyan,He Jingjuan,Xu Juan,Tian Ding.Comparison of ProCOUNT and Single-platform ISHAGE Gating Strategy for Enumeration of CD34 Positive Cells in Peripheral Blood and Apheresis Samples[J].Journal of Capital University of Medical Sciences,2006,27(4):504-508.
Authors:Wan Suigui  Su Li  Sun Xuejing  Ji Bingxin  Liu Congyan  He Jingjuan  Xu Juan  Tian Ding
Institution:Department of Hematology, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital University of Medical Sciences
Abstract:Objective To evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of methods of ProCOUNT and single-platform ISHAGE gating strategy for CD34 positive cells in peripheral blood and apheresis samples.Methods Flow cytometry was adopted to enumerate CD34 positive cells in peripheral blood and apheresis samples with ProCOUNT and single-platform ISHAGE gating strategy.And enumeration of CD34 positive cells in 23 peripheral blood and 50 apheresis samples were performed.The results of the two methods were compared using Spearman correlation and paired t-test.Results There was a strong correlation between the absolute counting and percentage of CD34 positive cells for the two methods(r all >0.9,P all<0.001).The absolute counting in peripheral blood and apheresis samples with ProCOUNT and single-platform ISHAGE gating strategy were(42.7±7.5) μL-1 and(52.1±7.2) μL-1(P<0.01)respectively,(30515.2±684.7) μL-1 and((30923.8)±711.1) μL-1(P<0.01)respectively.The percentage of CD34 positive cells in peripheral blood and apheresis samples were(0.26±0.07)% and(0.13±0.05)%(P<0.01)respectively,(0.79±0.18)% and(0.83±0.17)%(P=0.056)respectively.All of the results using ProCOUNT were lower than those using single-platform ISHAGE gating strategy.Conclusion There is a strong correlation between the absolute counting and percentage of CD34 positive cells for the ProCOUNT and single-platform ISHAGE gating strategy,but the result of the former is significantly lower than that of the latter.
Keywords:ProCOUNT  ISHAGE  flow cytometry  CD34~  cell
本文献已被 CNKI 万方数据 等数据库收录!
点击此处可从《首都医学院学报》浏览原始摘要信息
点击此处可从《首都医学院学报》下载免费的PDF全文
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号