BACKGROUND: Even modern automatic cell counters cannot count basophils precisely. Therefore, we need a rapid, accurate, precise, and easy method for counting basophils. METHODS: Using flow cytometry, basophils (CD22+/CD19-) and B cells (CD22+/CD19+) were counted. Within a large lymphocyte light scatter gate, % basophils (G%baso) and % B cells (G%B) were determined from the total count. Another method of analysis was to make two regions (R1 for basophils and R2 for B cells) and to determine in those the % basophils (R1%baso) and % B cells (R2%B) without gating. The flow cytometric basophil counts of the blood of 21 normal controls and 43 chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) patients were compared with manual basophil count (Ma%baso) and basophil count by Coulter electronic cell counter (Hialeah, FL) (Auto%baso). CD22+/CD19- cells were sorted by a FACSCalibur (Becton Dickinson, San Jose, CA). RESULTS: The G%baso of all samples was 4.66 +/- 5.35%, and R1%baso was 4.23 +/- 4.88%, and they were well-correlated (r = 0.996, P < 0.001). The G%B of all samples was 1.55 +/- 1.68%, and R2%B was 1.59 +/- 1.67%, and they were also well-correlated (r = 0.993, P < 0.001). Their correlation was better in normal controls than in CML. G%baso was well-correlated to Ma%baso (r = 0.827) and Auto%baso (r = 0.806), and R1%baso was well-correlated to Ma%baso (r = 0.831) but showed poor correlation to Auto%baso (r = 0.734). Auto%baso revealed the poorest correlation to Ma%baso (r = 0.692). The sorted CD22+/CD19- cells were all basophils (99.48 +/- 0.30%), and they revealed CD13, CD33, and dim CD45 expression, whereas CD3, CD14, CD16, and HLA-DR were not detected on them. CONCLUSIONS: We discovered a specific marker combination to identify basophils (CD22+/CD19-), and we suggest that flow cytometric analysis using these markers is an easy, reliable, and accurate method of basophil counting. Copyright 1999 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
BACKGROUND: Even modern automatic cell counters cannot count basophils precisely. Therefore, we need a rapid, accurate, precise, and easy method for counting basophils. METHODS: Using flow cytometry, basophils (CD22+/CD19-) and B cells (CD22+/CD19+) were counted. Within a large lymphocyte light scatter gate, % basophils (G%baso) and % B cells (G%B) were determined from the total count. Another method of analysis was to make two regions (R1 for basophils and R2 for B cells) and to determine in those the % basophils (R1%baso) and % B cells (R2%B) without gating. The flow cytometric basophil counts of the blood of 21 normal controls and 43 chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) patients were compared with manual basophil count (Ma%baso) and basophil count by Coulter electronic cell counter (Hialeah, FL) (Auto%baso). CD22+/CD19- cells were sorted by a FACSCalibur (Becton Dickinson, San Jose, CA). RESULTS: The G%baso of all samples was 4.66 +/- 5.35%, and R1%baso was 4.23 +/- 4.88%, and they were well-correlated (r = 0.996, P < 0.001). The G%B of all samples was 1.55 +/- 1.68%, and R2%B was 1.59 +/- 1.67%, and they were also well-correlated (r = 0.993, P < 0.001). Their correlation was better in normal controls than in CML. G%baso was well-correlated to Ma%baso (r = 0.827) and Auto%baso (r = 0.806), and R1%baso was well-correlated to Ma%baso (r = 0.831) but showed poor correlation to Auto%baso (r = 0.734). Auto%baso revealed the poorest correlation to Ma%baso (r = 0.692). The sorted CD22+/CD19- cells were all basophils (99.48 +/- 0.30%), and they revealed CD13, CD33, and dim CD45 expression, whereas CD3, CD14, CD16, and HLA-DR were not detected on them. CONCLUSIONS: We discovered a specific marker combination to identify basophils (CD22+/CD19-), and we suggest that flow cytometric analysis using these markers is an easy, reliable, and accurate method of basophil counting. Copyright 1999 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: J J M van Dongen; L Lhermitte; S Böttcher; J Almeida; V H J van der Velden; J Flores-Montero; A Rawstron; V Asnafi; Q Lécrevisse; P Lucio; E Mejstrikova; T Szczepański; T Kalina; R de Tute; M Brüggemann; L Sedek; M Cullen; A W Langerak; A Mendonça; E Macintyre; M Martin-Ayuso; O Hrusak; M B Vidriales; A Orfao Journal: Leukemia Date: 2012-05-03 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: N Abuaf; H Rostane; J Barbara; C Toly-Ndour; H Gaouar; P Mathelier-Fusade; F Leynadier; C Francès; R Girot Journal: J Allergy (Cairo) Date: 2011-12-01
Authors: L Lhermitte; E Mejstrikova; A J van der Sluijs-Gelling; G E Grigore; L Sedek; A E Bras; G Gaipa; E Sobral da Costa; M Novakova; E Sonneveld; C Buracchi; T de Sá Bacelar; J G Te Marvelde; A Trinquand; V Asnafi; T Szczepanski; S Matarraz; A Lopez; B Vidriales; J Bulsa; O Hrusak; T Kalina; Q Lecrevisse; M Martin Ayuso; M Brüggemann; J Verde; P Fernandez; L Burgos; B Paiva; C E Pedreira; J J M van Dongen; A Orfao; V H J van der Velden Journal: Leukemia Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: El-Ad David Amir; Brian Lee; Paul Badoual; Martin Gordon; Xinzheng V Guo; Miriam Merad; Adeeb H Rahman Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: Stephan Blüml; Kathleen McKeever; Rachel Ettinger; Josef Smolen; Ronald Herbst Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2013-04-04 Impact factor: 5.156