Analyze Diet
Veterinary immunology and immunopathology1998; 58(3-4); 231-237; doi: 10.1016/s0165-2427(97)00044-5

Comparative analysis of equine lymphocyte subsets in whole blood and gradient-purified samples.

Abstract: In the present study, two methods of lymphocyte preparation, whole blood lysis and Ficoll-Paque separation, prior to FACS analysis were compared. The comparison was done with single and dual-colour staining techniques. Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) against eCD4, eCD5, eCD8 and eMHC class II were used. There was no significant difference in the results obtained by these two methods.
Publication Date: 1998-01-22 PubMed ID: 9436267DOI: 10.1016/s0165-2427(97)00044-5Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
  • Comparative Study
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research article entails a comparison of two methods used to prepare lymphocyte samples in horses – whole blood lysis and Ficoll-Paque separation. There was no significant disparity between the results provided by these two techniques.

Research Study Overview

  • The research examined two prevalent methods applied in the preparation of lymphocytes from horses; the methods under scrutiny were whole blood lysis and Ficoll-Paque separation.
  • Lymphocytes are a type of white blood cell that plays a critical role within the immune system. Their extraction and analysis are integral to understanding animal and human health, particularly in relation to immune response.

Ficoll-Paque Separation and Whole Blood Lysis Procedures

  • The former method, Ficoll-Paque separation, entails the use of a specialised solution to separate different cell types based on their density.
  • The latter, whole blood lysis, involves the destruction of the red blood cells within a blood sample, leaving behind the white blood cells, which include the lymphocytes.

Method Comparison & Staining Techniques

  • The research went a step further to compare the techniques through single and dual-colour staining. Staining enhances visibility under a microscope and highlights specific features of the cells for easy identification and analysis.
  • The monoclonal antibodies used for the staining process were eCD4, eCD5, eCD8, and eMHC class II. These are proteins that serve as markers, helping identify specific cells within an immune response.

Findings

  • The findings from this research showed that there was no significant difference between the lymphocyte samples prepared via whole blood lysis and Ficoll-Paque separation.
  • This indicates that both methods are equally efficient and accurate, thereby providing more flexibility to researchers and medical experts conducting these analyses.

Cite This Article

APA
Akens MK, Holznagel E, Franchini M, Bracher V. (1998). Comparative analysis of equine lymphocyte subsets in whole blood and gradient-purified samples. Vet Immunol Immunopathol, 58(3-4), 231-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0165-2427(97)00044-5

Publication

ISSN: 0165-2427
NlmUniqueID: 8002006
Country: Netherlands
Language: English
Volume: 58
Issue: 3-4
Pages: 231-237

Researcher Affiliations

Akens, M K
  • Department of Veterinary Internal Medicine, University of Zurich, Switzerland. makens@vetklinik.unizh.ch
Holznagel, E
    Franchini, M
      Bracher, V

        MeSH Terms

        • Animals
        • Female
        • Flow Cytometry
        • Horses / immunology
        • Immunophenotyping
        • Lymphocyte Subsets / immunology
        • Male

        Citations

        This article has been cited 1 times.
        1. Hemmatzadeh F, Boardman W, Alinejad A, Hematzade A, Moghadam MK. Molecular and Serological Survey of Selected Viruses in Free-Ranging Wild Ruminants in Iran. PLoS One 2016;11(12):e0168756.
          doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168756pubmed: 27997620google scholar: lookup