Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesLaboratory StudyEurope PMCOpen access

Considerations for high-yield, high-throughput cell enrichment: fluorescence versus magnetic sorting

Sutermaster BA., Darling EM.

Laboratory Study on Systemic / IV, published in Sci Rep (2019) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Laboratory Study
Journal
Sci Rep (2019)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
30659223
PMCID
PMC6338736
DOI
10.1038/s41598-018-36698-1
Citations
137

Abstract (original English)

Efficient sorting methods are required for the isolation of cellular subpopulations in basic science and translational applications. Despite this, throughputs, yields, viabilities, and processing times of common sorting methods like fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) and magnetic-activated cell sorting (MACS) are underreported. In the current study, we set out to quantify the ability of these sorting methods to separate defined mixtures of alkaline phosphatase liver/bone/kidney (ALPL)-expressing and non-expressing cell types. Results showed that initial MACS runs performed using manufacturer's recommended antibody and microbead concentrations produced inaccurate ALPL+ vs. ALPL- cell splits compared to FACS when ALPL+ cells were present in larger proportions (>~25%). Accuracy at all proportions could be achieved by using substantially higher concentrations of labeling reagents. Importantly, MACS sorts resulted in only 7-9% cell loss compared to ~70% cell loss for FACS. Additionally, MACS processing was 4-6 times faster than FACS for single, low proportion samples but took similar time for single, high-proportion samples. When processing multiple samples, MACS was always faster overall due to its ability to run samples in parallel. Average cell viability for all groups remained high (>83%), regardless of sorting method. Despite requiring substantial optimization, the abil

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence
HumansAlkaline PhosphataseFlow CytometryImmunomagnetic SeparationCell SurvivalGene Expression

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research