BACKGROUND: FoxP3 has become a key identifier of regulatory T cells. Investigators have used a variety of antibodies and methods for detecting FoxP3 by flow cytometry. To standardize FoxP3 antibody staining for use in clinical trial samples, we tested various antibodies from different vendors, cell preparation protocols and fix/perm reagents, and cell isolation procedures. Using this optimized staining protocol, we evaluated clinical specimens from patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) or type 1 diabetes. METHODS: FoxP3 antibodies from eBioscience (236A/E7 and PCH101) and BioLegend (206D) were evaluated along with their respective methods and fix/perm reagents for preparation and staining of FoxP3 for flow cytometry. Fresh washed blood and frozen or fresh PBMC were evaluated. Upon optimization of the protocol, clinical samples (frozen PBMC) from patients with MS or type 1 diabetes and healthy control donors were evaluated with the BioLegend antibody. RESULTS: Clone 206D from BioLegend yielded optimal staining and the fix/perm reagents from both eBioscience and BioLegend were comparable. Data were also comparable between cells separated by Ficoll (fresh or frozen) and washed blood samples, allowing this protocol to be applicable to different types of samples. We validated this protocol using clinical samples and saw a significant increase in FoxP3 expression in the patients with type 1 diabetes but not in the MS. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study will allow the assessment of FoxP3 by flow cytometry on samples from clinical sites that are analyzed in real time on fresh blood or frozen PBMC. 2008 Clinical Cytometry Society.
BACKGROUND:FoxP3 has become a key identifier of regulatory T cells. Investigators have used a variety of antibodies and methods for detecting FoxP3 by flow cytometry. To standardize FoxP3 antibody staining for use in clinical trial samples, we tested various antibodies from different vendors, cell preparation protocols and fix/perm reagents, and cell isolation procedures. Using this optimized staining protocol, we evaluated clinical specimens from patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) or type 1 diabetes. METHODS:FoxP3 antibodies from eBioscience (236A/E7 and PCH101) and BioLegend (206D) were evaluated along with their respective methods and fix/perm reagents for preparation and staining of FoxP3 for flow cytometry. Fresh washed blood and frozen or fresh PBMC were evaluated. Upon optimization of the protocol, clinical samples (frozen PBMC) from patients with MS or type 1 diabetes and healthy control donors were evaluated with the BioLegend antibody. RESULTS: Clone 206D from BioLegend yielded optimal staining and the fix/perm reagents from both eBioscience and BioLegend were comparable. Data were also comparable between cells separated by Ficoll (fresh or frozen) and washed blood samples, allowing this protocol to be applicable to different types of samples. We validated this protocol using clinical samples and saw a significant increase in FoxP3 expression in the patients with type 1 diabetes but not in the MS. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study will allow the assessment of FoxP3 by flow cytometry on samples from clinical sites that are analyzed in real time on fresh blood or frozen PBMC. 2008 Clinical Cytometry Society.
Authors: Andrew M Posselt; Gregory L Szot; Lynda A Frassetto; Umesh Masharani; Mehdi Tavakol; Raj Amin; Joan McElroy; Marissa D Ramos; Robert K Kerlan; Lawrence Fong; Flavio Vincenti; Jeffrey A Bluestone; Peter G Stock Journal: Transplantation Date: 2010-12-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: L Nettenstrom; K Alderson; E E Raschke; M D Evans; P M Sondel; S Olek; C M Seroogy Journal: J Immunol Methods Date: 2012-10-09 Impact factor: 2.303
Authors: A M Posselt; M D Bellin; M Tavakol; G L Szot; L A Frassetto; U Masharani; R K Kerlan; L Fong; F G Vincenti; B J Hering; J A Bluestone; P G Stock Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Thomas Decker; Gerhard Fischer; Wolfgang Bücke; Philipp Bücke; Frank Stotz; Andreas Grüneberger; Martina Gropp-Meier; Günther Wiedemann; Christine Pfeiffer; Christian Peschel; Katharina Götze Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2012-07-04 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Pietro Presicce; Maria E Moreno-Fernandez; Celine S Lages; Kris I Orsborn; Claire A Chougnet Journal: Cytometry A Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 4.355
Authors: Rikki A Cannioto; Lara E Sucheston-Campbell; Shalaka Hampras; Ellen L Goode; Keith Knutson; Roberta Ness; Francesmary Modugno; Paul Wallace; J Brian Szender; Paul Mayor; Chi-Chen Hong; Janine M Joseph; Grace Friel; Warren Davis; Mary Nesline; Kevin H Eng; Robert P Edwards; Bridget Kruszka; Kristina Schmitt; Kunle Odunsi; Kirsten B Moysich Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Jacqueline P Law; Dale F Hirschkorn; Rachel E Owen; Hope H Biswas; Philip J Norris; Marion C Lanteri Journal: Cytometry A Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.355
Authors: Shalaka S Hampras; Mary Nesline; Paul K Wallace; Kunle Odunsi; Nicholas Furlani; Warren Davis; Kirsten B Moysich Journal: J Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2012-08-26