Advertisement

Quantitative Functional Morphology by Imaging Flow Cytometry

Protocol
First Online:
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1389)

Abstract

This chapter describes advantages and limitations of imaging flow cytometry (IFC) based on Imagestream instrumentation using a hybrid approach of morphometric measurement and quantitation of multiparametric fluorescent intensities’ distribution in cells and particles. Brief comparison is given of IFC with conventional flow cytometry and fluorescent microscopy. Some future directions of the IFC technology are described and discussed.

Key words

Imaging flow cytometry Flow cytometry Quantitative morphology Spectral compensation Autofluorescence Automated image analysis 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work was supported in part by NIH S10 RR023459 grant, Harvard Pilot grant, and the Russian Foundation for Basic Research grants 13-04-40189-H and 11-04-01749a. We are also grateful to Aleksandra Gorelova (Harvard University) for help with the editing and preparation of the manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Oheim M (2011) Advances and challenges in high-throughput microscopy for live-cell subcellular imaging. Expert Opin Drug Discov 6:1299–1315. doi: 10.1517/17460441.2011.637105 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Perfetto SP, Chattopadhyay PK, Roederer M (2004) Seventeen-colour flow cytometry: unravelling the immune system. Nat Rev Immunol 4:648–655CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Henery S, George T, Hall B, Basiji D, Ortyn W, Morrisey P (2008) Quantitative image based apoptotic index measurement using multispectral imaging flow cytometry: a comparison with standard photometric methods. Apoptosis 13:1054–1063. doi: 10.1007/s10495-008-0227-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ouk C, Jayat-Vignoles C, Donnard M, Feuillard J (2011) Both CD62 and CD162 antibodies prevent formation of CD36-dependent platelets, rosettes, and artefactual pseudoexpression of platelet markers on white blood cells: a study with ImageStream®. Cytometry A 79:477–484. doi: 10.1002/cyto.a.21050 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Di Palma S, Bodenmiller B (2015) Unraveling cell populations in tumors by single-cell mass cytometry. Curr Opin Biotechnol 31:122–129. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2014.07.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hulspas R, O’Gorman MRG, Wood BL, Gratama JW, Sutherland DR (2009) Considerations for the control of background fluorescence in clinical flow cytometry. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 76:355–364. doi: 10.1002/cyto.b.20485 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Li F, Yang M, Wang L, Williamson I, Tian F, Qin M, Shah PK, Sharifi BG (2012) Autofluorescence contributes to false-positive intracellular Foxp3 staining in macrophages: a lesson learned from flow cytometry. J Immunol Methods 386:101–107. doi: 10.1016/j.jim.2012.08.014 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vorobjev IA, Buchholz K, Prabhat P, Ketman K, Egan ES, Marti M, Duraisingh MT, Barteneva NS (2012) Optimization of flow cytometric detection and cell sorting of transgenic Plasmodium parasites using interchangeable optical filters. Malar J 11:312. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-11-312 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stepanenko OV, Shcherbakova DM, Kuznetsova IM, Turoverov KK, Verkhusha VV (2011) Modern fluorescent proteins: from chromophore formation to novel intracellular applications. Biotechniques 51:313–314. doi: 10.2144/000113765 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kovalenko EI, Ranjbar S, Jasenosky LD, Goldfeld AE, Vorobjev IA, Barteneva NS (2011) The use of HaloTag-based technology in flow and laser scanning cytometry analysis of live and fixed samples. BMC Res Notes 4:340. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-4-340 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johanasson U, Macey M (2011) Pitfalls in the use of multicolour flow cytometry in haematology. J Clin Pathol 64:561–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mayhew TM (2011) Mapping the distributions and quantifying the labelling intensities of cell compartments by immunoelectron microscopy: progress towards a coherent set of methods. J Anat 219:647–660. doi: 10.1136/jcp.2010.085183 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    George TC, Basiji DA, Hall BE, Lynch DH, Ortyn WE, Perry DJ, Seo MJ, Zimmerman CA, Morrissey PJ (2004) Distinguishing modes of cell death using the Imagestream multispectral imaging flow cytometer. Cytometry A 59:237–245CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kraan J, Gratama JW, Haioun C, Orfao A, Plonquet A, Porwit A, Quijano S, Stetler-Stevenson M, Subira D, Wilson W (2008) Flow cytometric immunophenotyping of cerebrospinal fluid. Curr Protoc Cytom Chapter 6: Unit 6.25, Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Graaf MT, de Jongste AHC, Kraan J, Boonstra JG, Sillevis Smitt PA, Graatama JW (2011) Flow cytometric characterization of cerebrospinal fluid cells. Cytometry B 80:271–281. doi: 10.1002/cyto.b.20603 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Muskavitch MA, Barteneva N, Gubbels MJ (2008) Chemogenomics and parasitology: small molecules and cell-based assays to study infectious processes. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 11:624–646CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tree JA, Flick-Smith H, Elmore MJ, Rowland CA (2014) The impact of “omic” and imaging technologies on assessing the host immune response to biodefense agents. J Immunol Res 2014, Article ID 237043. doi: 10.1155/2014/237043Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wlodkowic D, Telford W, Skommer J, Darzinkiewicz Z (2011) Apoptosis and beyond: cytometry in studies of programmed cell death. Methods Cell Biol 103:55–98CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Betz SA, Foucar K, Head DR, Chen I-M, Willman CL (1992) False-positive platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa expression in myeloid leukemias secondary to platelet adherence to blasts. Blood 79:2399–2403PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Placke T, Orgel M, Schaller M, Jung G, Rammensee H-G, Kopp H-G, Salih HR (2012) Platelet-derived Class I confers a pseudonormal phenotype to cancer cells that subverts the antitumor reactivity of natural killer immune cells. Cancer Res 72:440–448. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-11-1872 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rieger AM, Hall BE, Luong LT, Schang LM, Barreda DR (2010) Conventional apoptosis assays using propidium iodide generate a significant number of false positives that prevent accurate assessment of cell death. J Immunol Methods 358:81–92. doi: 10.1016/j.jim.2010.03.019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cell Biology and HistologyM.V. Lomonosov Moscow State UniversityMoscowRussia
  2. 2.A.N. Belozersky Institute of Physico-Chemical BiologyM.V. Lomonosov Moscow State UniversityMoscowRussia
  3. 3.Cellular and Molecular Medicine ProgramBoston Childrens HospitalBostonUSA
  4. 4.Department of PediatricsHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite protocol

Buy options