ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2026
Analytical Comparison of Three Commercial Lysing Reagents for Full-Spectrum Flow Cytometric Immunophenotyping.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFlow cytometry (FC) enables rapid identification of cell lineages based on their fluorescent and light-scattering properties, playing a critical role in diagnosing and monitoring oncohematological diseases. Standardization of procedures in spectral FC is essential for method validation studies.
methodsWe designed a comparative study using 21 blood samples from healthy donors. Three commercial lysing solutions used in spectral FC immunophenotyping were evaluated. Samples were stained with a panel of eight antibody-conjugated fluorochromes and aliquoted for assessment with each lysing solution (Excellyse I, Excellyse Easy, and Tombo RBC Lysis Buffer), following the manufacturers' protocols. Data acquisition was performed using a full-spectrum flow cytometer.
resultsAn average cell loss of 31.4% was observed, with no statistically significant differences between lysing solutions, although Excellyse I showed lower cell loss under the no-wash protocol. This reagent also achieved superior resolution in distinguishing lymphocytes from debris. It demonstrated the lowest coefficients of variation in both scatter and fluorescence parameters of leukocyte populations, highlighting its ability to preserve the optical characteristics of stained cells. RBC-T performed well in specific channels such as APC and PE-Cy7, whereas Excellyse Easy produced a resolution comparable to Excellyse I, albeit with greater signal dispersion.
conclusionExcellyse I demonstrated the best overall performance, with greater cell preservation, clearer population resolution, and lower variability in scatter and fluorescence. Nonetheless, Excellyse Easy may still be considered a viable alternative.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.