Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26307036›Full record

ArticleBMC immunology2015

Immune cell subsets and their gene expression profiles from human PBMC isolated by Vacutainer Cell Preparation Tube (CPT™) and standard density gradient.

Christopher P Corkum, Danielle P Ings, Christopher Burgess, Sylwia Karwowska, Werner Kroll, Tomasz I Michalak

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC immunology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 96 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
96citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

96 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Effect of heat-killedFrontiers in nutrition · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

36 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Christopher P CorkumMolecular Virology and Hepatology Research Group, Division of BioMedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Health Sciences Centre, Memorial University, St. John's, NL, A1B3V6, Canada. c.corkum@mun.ca.
Danielle P IngsMolecular Virology and Hepatology Research Group, Division of BioMedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Health Sciences Centre, Memorial University, St. John's, NL, A1B3V6, Canada. dings@mun.ca.
Christopher BurgessNovartis Oncology Companion Diagnostics, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA. chris.burgess@novartis.com.
Sylwia KarwowskaNovartis Oncology Companion Diagnostics, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA. sylwia.karwowska@novartis.com.
Werner KrollNovartis Oncology Companion Diagnostics, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA. werner.krol@quidel.com.
Tomasz I MichalakMolecular Virology and Hepatology Research Group, Division of BioMedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Health Sciences Centre, Memorial University, St. John's, NL, A1B3V6, Canada. timich@mun.ca.

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research MOP-126056
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh quality genetic material is an essential pre-requisite when analyzing gene expression using microarray technology. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) are frequently used for genomic analyses, but several factors can affect the integrity of nucleic acids prior to their extraction, including the methods of PBMC collection and isolation. Due to the lack of the relevant data published, we compared the Ficoll-Paque density gradient centrifugation and BD Vacutainer cell preparation tube (CPT) protocols to determine if either method offered a distinct advantage in preparation of PBMC-derived immune cell subsets for their use in gene expression analysis. We evaluated the yield and purity of immune cell subpopulations isolated from PBMC derived by both methods, the quantity and quality of extracted nucleic acids, and compared gene expression in PBMC and individual immune cell types from Ficoll and CPT isolation protocols using Affymetrix microarrays.

resultsThe mean yield and viability of fresh PBMC acquired by the CPT method (1.16 × 10(6) cells/ml, 93.3%) were compatible to those obtained with Ficoll (1.34 × 10(6) cells/ml, 97.2%). No differences in the mean purity, recovery, and viability of CD19+ (B cells), CD8+ (cytotoxic T cells), CD4+ (helper T cell) and CD14+ (monocytes) positively selected from CPT- or Ficoll-isolated PBMC were found. Similar quantities of high quality RNA and DNA were extracted from PBMC and immune cells obtained by both methods. Finally, the PBMC isolation methods tested did not impact subsequent recovery and purity of individual immune cell subsets and, importantly, their gene expression profiles.

conclusionsOur findings demonstrate that the CPT and Ficoll PBMC isolation protocols do not differ in their ability to purify high quality immune cell subpopulations. Since there was no difference in the gene expression profiles between immune cells obtained by these two methods, the Ficoll isolation can be substituted by the CPT protocol without conceding phenotypic changes of immune cells and compromising the gene expression studies. Given that the CPT protocol is less elaborate, minimizes cells' handling and processing time, this method offers a significant operating advantage, especially in large-scale clinical studies aiming at dissecting gene expression in PBMC and PBMC-derived immune cell subpopulations.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingAdultCell SeparationCell SurvivalCentrifugation, Density GradientCryopreservationDNAFicollHumansLymphocyte SubsetsOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisPrincipal Component AnalysisRNADNAFicollRNA

Identifiers

PMID26307036
PMCPMC4549105

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.