ArticlePloS one2026
Comparing PBMC isolation approaches and assessing epigenetic immune cell quantification as quality control for PBMCs.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- FlowSpot Enables Decentralized Phenotypic and Functional Cellular Immune Profiling from Dried Blood Spots.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Article
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
Ex vivo stability of whole blood is limited. To conserve the mononuclear cell fraction, PBMCs are isolated, stored and serve as substrate for downstream analyses. The quality of PBMCs depends on the purification procedure. Thereby, anti-coagulants, collection tubes, storage temperature and time before isolation, as well as the separation matrix and protocols during purification may impact quality of the resulting PBMC product. However, only a limited number of key quality indicators (KPIs) are currently used to characterize PBMC isolates focusing on viability and overall cell count. Here, the effect of the relevant purification parameters on those KPIs was assessed, and epigenetic immune cell analysis was introduced to provide an additional performance indicator. This method was also compared to flow cytometric analysis, currently the gold standard tool for immune cell quantification. Sample quality differed significantly depending on tube type/anticoagulant, pre-purification temperature and times. The choice of the purification procedure, including the separation matrix, had a minor effect and freshly processed blood yielded good processing results independent of the protocol. Unsurprisingly, the loss of sample integrity that occurred prior to purification cannot be rescued by downstream isolation protocols. The longer the time from blood draw to PBMC purification, the more granulocyte contamination was observed impairing PBMC purity. With given tubes and temperatures, PBMC quality is chiefly dependent on time-to-process, arguably the parameter most difficult to control in sample logistics and clinical trials. The often-used key performance indicators focusing only on cell viability and recovery are of limited value, as they may be falsified by potential granulocyte contamination. Thus, as additional quality parameter, we propose "true recovery", i.e., recovery of lymphocytes and monocytes only. These subfractions can be measured easily by qPCR-based epigenetic immune cell counting. Such an approach may provide better comparability across sample analyses in clinical trials.
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.