Literature DB >> 11311488

Cryopreserving whole blood for functional assays using viable lymphocytes in molecular epidemiology studies.

L Cheng1, L E Wang, M R Spitz, Q Wei.   

Abstract

There is an increasing need for viable lymphocytes in performing phenotypic assays for biomarker studies. Both fresh and cryopreserved lymphocytes have been used for cell culture-based functional assays. However, fresh lymphocytes do not allow assays to be done in batches and cryopreservation of isolated lymphocytes results in a considerable loss of viable cells. To investigate the feasibility of using cryopreserved whole blood as a source of viable lymphocytes in molecular epidemiology studies, two well-established biomarkers, the host-cell reactivation (HCR) and mutagen sensitivity assays, were used to compare the method of cryopreserving whole blood with the traditional methods. In 25 paired blood samples assayed for DNA repair capacity (DRC) by the HCR assay, the DRC values of frozen whole blood (mean +/- SD, 11.59 +/- 3.07) were similar to those of frozen isolated lymphocytes (11.08 +/- 3.50). The correlation between the paired DRC values was 0.77 (P < 0.001). In 31 paired blood samples assayed for the gamma-radiation-induced chromatid breaks by the mutagen sensitivity assay, there was no significant difference between the baseline level of chromatid breaks in lymphocytes from frozen blood (0.05 +/- 0.03) and fresh blood (0.06 +/- 0.03). The blastogenic rate and mitotic index of the cells used for the two assays were compared between the different processing methods. The lymphocytes from frozen whole blood were more sensitive to gamma-radiation, with a higher mean level of chromatid breaks (0.68 +/- 0.21) than that in fresh blood (0.42 +/- 0.12, P < 0.01), and the correlation between the numbers of chromatid breaks in the paired samples was statistically significant (r = 0.61, P < 0.001). These data suggest that within the limits of the parameters investigated here, cryopreserved whole blood is a good source of viable lymphocytes for biomarker assays in molecular epidemiological studies.

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11311488     DOI: 10.1016/s0304-3835(01)00400-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Lett        ISSN: 0304-3835            Impact factor:   8.679


  13 in total

1.  Prospective analysis of DNA damage and repair markers of lung cancer risk from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial.

Authors:  Alice J Sigurdson; Irene M Jones; Qingyi Wei; Xifeng Wu; Margaret R Spitz; Douglas A Stram; Myron D Gross; Wen-Yi Huang; Li-E Wang; Jian Gu; Cynthia B Thomas; Douglas J Reding; Richard B Hayes; Neil E Caporaso
Journal:  Carcinogenesis       Date:  2010-10-07       Impact factor: 4.944

2.  High-potentiality preliminary selection criteria and transformation time-dependent factors analysis for establishing Epstein-Barr virus transformed human lymphoblastoid cell lines.

Authors:  I-C Chang; J-Y Wu; H-I Lu; H-W Ko; J-L Kuo; C-Y Wang; P-S Shen; S-M Hwang
Journal:  Cell Prolif       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 6.831

3.  Chromosomal aberrations in peripheral blood lymphocytes and risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Authors:  Sophia S Wang; Scott Davis; Patricia Hartge; Wendy Cozen; Richard K Severson; James R Cerhan; Nathaniel Rothman
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2008

Review 4.  Towards precision prevention: Technologies for identifying healthy individuals with high risk of disease.

Authors:  Zachary D Nagel; Bevin P Engelward; David J Brenner; Thomas J Begley; Robert W Sobol; Jason H Bielas; Peter J Stambrook; Qingyi Wei; Jennifer J Hu; Mary Beth Terry; Caroline Dilworth; Kimberly A McAllister; Les Reinlib; Leroy Worth; Daniel T Shaughnessy
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2017-04-06       Impact factor: 2.433

5.  Expanded usage of the Challenge-Comet assay as a DNA repair biomarker in human populations: protocols for fresh and cryopreserved blood samples, and for different challenge agents.

Authors:  Vanessa Valdiglesias; María Sánchez-Flores; Natalia Fernández-Bertólez; William Au; Eduardo Pásaro; Blanca Laffon
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2020-09-30       Impact factor: 5.153

6.  No evidence for differences in DNA damage assessed before and after a cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  Parveen Bhatti; Alice J Sigurdson; Cynthia B Thomas; Allison Iwan; Bruce H Alexander; Diane Kampa; Laura Bowen; Michele Morin Doody; Irene M Jones
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 7.  DNA repair phenotype and cancer susceptibility--a mini review.

Authors:  Chunying Li; Li-E Wang; Qingyi Wei
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2009-03-01       Impact factor: 7.396

8.  A Practical Cryopreservation and Staining Protocol for Immunophenotyping in Population Studies.

Authors:  Helene Barcelo; Jessica Faul; Eileen Crimmins; Bharat Thyagarajan
Journal:  Curr Protoc Cytom       Date:  2018-04

9.  Simultaneous quantification of mitochondrial DNA damage and copy number in circulating blood: a sensitive approach to systemic oxidative stress.

Authors:  Sam W Chan; Simone Chevalier; Armen Aprikian; Junjian Z Chen
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2012-12-27       Impact factor: 3.411

10.  CometChip analysis of human primary lymphocytes enables quantification of inter-individual differences in the kinetics of repair of oxidative DNA damage.

Authors:  Le P Ngo; Simran Kaushal; Isaac A Chaim; Patrizia Mazzucato; Catherine Ricciardi; Leona D Samson; Zachary D Nagel; Bevin P Engelward
Journal:  Free Radic Biol Med       Date:  2021-07-26       Impact factor: 8.101

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.