Summary
To establish the method of cell separation with domestic immuomagnetic beads, three methods were investigated. Direct method, SPA method and Biotin-Avidin method were applied to separate cell strain Hut-78 and CD4 positive cells. Separation rate of strain Hut-78 was more than 90 % in direct method. Detachment rate with papain was over 95 %. Cell activity was well retained. SPA method and Biotin-Avidin methods were also effective, but the direct method was superior to the other two techniques. Before separated by the direct method, CD4 positive cells constituted 46.4 % ±6.4 % of mononuclear cells (MNC), but in eliminated suspension there was only 6.2 % ± 2.3 % CD4 positive cells left. In the separated part, 80.6 % ± 7.2 % of the cells combined with the beads. It is concluded that the direct method in separating cells had high sensitivity and specificity.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ugelstad J, Soderberg L, Berge Aet al. Monodisperse polymer particles a step forward for chromatography. Nature, 1983, 303:95
Hardingham J E, Kotasek D, Farmer Bet al. Immunobead — PCR: A technique for the detection of circulating tumor cells using immunomagnetic beads and the polymerase chain reaction. Can Res, 1993, 53:34 553
Uhlen M. Magnetic separation of DNA. Nature, 1989, 40:733
Enroth H, Engstrand L. Immunomagnetic separation and PCR for detection of Helicobacter Pylori in water and stool specimens. J Clin Microbiol, 1995, 33:2162
1994, 23:443
Wixler V, Klarmann B, Begemann Uet al. Isolation and qualification of class I MHC gene mutants in mouse T cells by immunoselection with a magnetic cell sorter. J Immunol Methods, 1994, 171:121
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This project was supported by a grant from Scientific and Research Foundation of Ministry of Public Health of China (No. 96-1-141).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zhichao, C., Yong, Y. & Ping, Z. Methodological study of cell separation with domestic immunomagnetic beads. Current Medical Science 20, 208–209 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02886991
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02886991