Advertisement

Immunophenotyping of Human Regulatory T Cells

Protocol
First Online:
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 2032)

Abstract

Regulatory T cells, also known as Tregs, play a pivotal role in maintaining homeostasis of the immune system and self-tolerance. Tregs express CD3, CD4, CD25, and FOXP3 but lack CD127. CD4 and CD3 identify helper T lymphocytes, of which Tregs are a subset. CD25 is IL-2Rα, an essential activation marker that is expressed in high levels on Tregs. FOXP3 is the canonical transcription factor, important in the development, maintenance, and identification of Tregs. CD127 is IL-7 receptor, expressed inversely with suppression, and is therefore downregulated on Tregs. Flow cytometry is a powerful tool that is capable of simultaneously measuring Tregs along with several markers associated with subpopulations of Tregs, activation, maturation, proliferation, and surrogates of functional suppression. This chapter describes a multicolor flow cytometry-based approach to measure human Tregs, including details for surface staining, fixation/permeabilization, intracellular/intranuclear staining, acquisition of samples on a flow cytometer, plus analysis and interpretation of resulting FCS files.

Key words

Tregs nTregs iTregs Effector tregs Immunophenotyping Flow cytometry FoxP3 CD127 Suppressor T cells 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Sakaguchi S et al (2010) FOXP3+ regulatory T cells in the human immune system. Nat Rev Immunol 10(7):490–500PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Li X, Zheng Y (2015) Regulatory T cell identity: formation and maintenance. Trends Immunol 36(6):344–353PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vignali DA, Collison LW, Workman CJ (2008) How regulatory T cells work. Nat Rev Immunol 8(7):523–532PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hall BM (2016) CD4+CD25+ T regulatory cells in transplantation tolerance: 25 years on. Transplantation 100(12):2533–2547PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Falivene J et al (2015) Th17 and Th17/Treg ratio at early HIV infection associate with protective HIV-specific CD8(+) T-cell responses and disease progression. Sci Rep 5:11511PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Borrow P, Moody MA (2017) Immunologic characteristics of HIV-infected individuals who make broadly neutralizing antibodies. Immunol Rev 275(1):62–78PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Santegoets SJ et al (2015) Monitoring regulatory T cells in clinical samples: consensus on an essential marker set and gating strategy for regulatory T cell analysis by flow cytometry. Cancer Immunol Immunother 64(10):1271–1286PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tosolini M et al (2011) Clinical impact of different classes of infiltrating T cytotoxic and helper cells (Th1, th2, Treg, th17) in patients with colorectal cancer. Cancer Res 71(4):1263–1271PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nishikawa H, Sakaguchi S (2014) Regulatory T cells in cancer immunotherapy. Curr Opin Immunol 27:1–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Saito T et al (2016) Two FOXP3(+)CD4(+) T cell subpopulations distinctly control the prognosis of colorectal cancers. Nat Med 22(6):679–684PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Figueiredo AS, Schumacher A (2016) The T helper type 17/regulatory T cell paradigm in pregnancy. Immunology 148(1):13–21PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Engler JB et al (2017) Glucocorticoid receptor in T cells mediates protection from autoimmunity in pregnancy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 114(2):E181–e190PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Feyaerts D et al (2017) Human uterine lymphocytes acquire a more experienced and tolerogenic phenotype during pregnancy. Sci Rep 7(1):2884PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guzman-Genuino RM, Diener KR, Regulatory B (2017) Cells in pregnancy: lessons from autoimmunity, graft tolerance, and cancer. Front Immunol 8:172PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cipolletta D et al (2012) PPAR-gamma is a major driver of the accumulation and phenotype of adipose tissue Treg cells. Nature 486(7404):549–553PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Qiao YC et al (2016) Changes of regulatory T cells and of proinflammatory and immunosuppressive cytokines in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Diabetes Res 2016:3694957PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Serr I et al (2016) Type 1 diabetes vaccine candidates promote human Foxp3(+)Treg induction in humanized mice. Nat Commun 7:10991PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Visperas A, Vignali DA (2016) Are regulatory T cells defective in type 1 diabetes and can we fix them? J Immunol 197(10):3762–3770PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Joly AL et al (2018) Alternative splicing of FOXP3 controls regulatory T cell effector functions and is associated with human atherosclerotic plaque stability. Circ Res 122(10):1385–1394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Noval Rivas M et al (2015) Regulatory T cell reprogramming toward a Th2-cell-like lineage impairs oral tolerance and promotes food allergy. Immunity 42(3):512–523PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bacher P et al (2016) Regulatory T cell specificity directs tolerance versus allergy against aeroantigens in humans. Cell 167(4):1067–1078.e16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Palomares O et al (2017) Mechanisms of immune regulation in allergic diseases: the role of regulatory T and B cells. Immunol Rev 278(1):219–236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Miyara M, Ito Y, Sakaguchi S (2014) TREG-cell therapies for autoimmune rheumatic diseases. Nat Rev Rheumatol 10(9):543–551PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Klatzmann D, Abbas AK (2015) The promise of low-dose interleukin-2 therapy for autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. Nat Rev Immunol 15(5):283–294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reissig S et al (2017) Elevated levels of Bcl-3 inhibits Treg development and function resulting in spontaneous colitis. Nat Commun 8:15069PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tan HL et al (2013) T regulatory lymphocytes and endothelial function in pediatric obstructive sleep apnea. PLoS One 8(7):e69710PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ni K et al (2015) Th17/Treg balance in children with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and the relationship with allergic rhinitis. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 79(9):1448–1454PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Grant J et al (2009) Validated protocol for FoxP3 reveals increased expression in type 1 diabetes patients. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 76(2):69–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hori S (2014) Lineage stability and phenotypic plasticity of Foxp3(+) regulatory T cells. Immunol Rev 259(1):159–172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wing JB et al (2017) A distinct subpopulation of CD25(−) T-follicular regulatory cells localizes in the germinal centers. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 114(31):E6400–e6409PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Weinstein JS et al (2016) TFH cells progressively differentiate to regulate the germinal center response. Nat Immunol 17(10):1197–1205PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sage PT, Sharpe AH (2016) T follicular regulatory cells. Immunol Rev 271(1):246–259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sugiyama D et al (2013) Anti-CCR4 mAb selectively depletes effector-type FoxP3+CD4+ regulatory T cells, evoking antitumor immune responses in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110(44):17945–17950PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Steinborn A et al (2012) Pregnancy-associated diseases are characterized by the composition of the systemic regulatory T cell (Treg) pool with distinct subsets of Tregs. Clin Exp Immunol 167(1):84–98PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Maecker HT, McCoy JP, Nussenblatt R (2012) Standardizing immunophenotyping for the human immunology project. Nat Rev Immunol 12(3):191–200PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Li Z et al (2015) FOXP3+ regulatory T cells and their functional regulation. Cell Mol Immunol 12(5):558–565PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Li N et al (2015) The abnormal expression of CCR4 and CCR6 on Tregs in rheumatoid arthritis. Int J Clin Exp Med 8(9):15043–15053PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Iellem A et al (2001) Unique chemotactic response profile and specific expression of chemokine receptors CCR4 and CCR8 by CD4(+)CD25(+) regulatory T cells. J Exp Med 194(6):847–853PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Donnelly C et al (2018) Optimizing human Treg immunotherapy by Treg subset selection and E-selectin ligand expression. Sci Rep 8(1):420PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Liu W et al (2006) CD127 expression inversely correlates with FoxP3 and suppressive function of human CD4+ T reg cells. J Exp Med 203(7):1701–1711PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Seddiki N et al (2006) Expression of interleukin (IL)-2 and IL-7 receptors discriminates between human regulatory and activated T cells. J Exp Med 203(7):1693–1700PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Allan SE et al (2007) Activation-induced FOXP3 in human T effector cells does not suppress proliferation or cytokine production. Int Immunol 19(4):345–354PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tran DQ, Ramsey H, Shevach EM (2007) Induction of FOXP3 expression in naive human CD4+FOXP3 T cells by T-cell receptor stimulation is transforming growth factor-beta dependent but does not confer a regulatory phenotype. Blood 110(8):2983–2990PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mailer RKW (2018) Alternative splicing of FOXP3-virtue and vice. Front Immunol 9:530PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sambucci M et al (2018) FoxP3 isoforms and PD-1 expression by T regulatory cells in multiple sclerosis. Sci Rep 8(1):3674PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hartigan-O'Connor DJ et al (2007) Human CD4+ regulatory T cells express lower levels of the IL-7 receptor alpha chain (CD127), allowing consistent identification and sorting of live cells. J Immunol Methods 319(1–2):41–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    McKinnon KM (2018) Flow cytometry: an overview. Curr Protoc Immunol 120:5.1.1–5.1.11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Shapiro HM (2018) Flow cytometry: the glass is half full. Methods Mol Biol 1678:1–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Perfetto SP, Chattopadhyay PK, Roederer M (2004) Seventeen-colour flow cytometry: unravelling the immune system. Nat Rev Immunol 4(8):648–655PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ashhurst TM, Smith AL, King NJC (2017) High-dimensional fluorescence cytometry. Curr Protoc Immunol 119:5.8.1–5.8.38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    McLaughlin BE et al (2008) Nine-color flow cytometry for accurate measurement of T cell subsets and cytokine responses. Part I: panel design by an empiric approach. Cytometry A 73(5):400–410PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Mahnke Y, Chattopadhyay P, Roederer M (2010) Publication of optimized multicolor immunofluorescence panels. Cytometry A 77(9):814–818PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Mahnke YD, Roederer M (2007) Optimizing a multicolor immunophenotyping assay. Clin Lab Med 27(3):469–85, vPubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    McKinnon KM (2018) Multiparameter conventional flow cytometry. Methods Mol Biol 1678:139–150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wingender G, Kronenberg M (2015) OMIP-030: characterization of human T cell subsets via surface markers. Cytometry A 87(12):1067–1069PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Murdoch DM, Staats JS, Weinhold KJ (2012) OMIP-006: phenotypic subset analysis of human T regulatory cells via polychromatic flow cytometry. Cytometry A 81(4):281–283PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Moncunill G et al (2014) OMIP-024: pan-leukocyte immunophenotypic characterization of PBMC subsets in human samples. Cytometry A 85(12):995–998PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Mahnke YD, Beddall MH, Roederer M (2013) OMIP-015: human regulatory and activated T-cells without intracellular staining. Cytometry A 83(2):179–181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Biancotto A et al (2012) OMIP-004: in-depth characterization of human T regulatory cells. Cytometry A 81(1):15–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Givan AL (2011) Flow cytometry: an introduction. Methods Mol Biol 699:1–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Snow C (2004) Flow cytometer electronics. Cytometry A 57(2):63–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Data file standard for flow cytometry (1990) Data file standards committee of the society for analytical cytology. Cytometry 11(3):323–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Seamer L (2001) Data file standard for flow cytometry, FCS 3.0. Curr Protoc Cytom. Chapter 10: p. Unit 10.2Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Spidlen J et al (2011) Flow cytometry data standards. BMC Res Notes 4:50PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Feher K et al (2016) Multispectral flow cytometry: the consequences of increased light collection. Cytometry A 89(7):681–689PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Bagwell CB, Adams EG (1993) Fluorescence spectral overlap compensation for any number of flow cytometry parameters. Ann N Y Acad Sci 677:167–184PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Roederer M (2002) Compensation in flow cytometry. Curr Protoc Cytom. Chapter 1: p. Unit 1.14Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Szaloki G, Goda K (2015) Compensation in multicolor flow cytometry. Cytometry A 87(11):982–985PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    McNeil LK et al (2013) A harmonized approach to intracellular cytokine staining gating: results from an international multiconsortia proficiency panel conducted by the cancer immunotherapy consortium (CIC/CRI). Cytometry A 83(8):728–738PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Sun YL et al (2013) Application and effects of mouse Foxp3 antibody and fixation/permeabilization buffer on the detection of CD4+ regulatory T cells in various mammal species. Genet Mol Res 12(4):6535–6545PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Pillai V, Karandikar NJ (2008) Attack on the clones? Human FOXP3 detection by PCH101, 236A/E7, 206D, and 259D reveals 259D as the outlier with lower sensitivity. Blood 111(1):463–464. author reply 464-6PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Law JP et al (2009) The importance of Foxp3 antibody and fixation/permeabilization buffer combinations in identifying CD4+CD25+Foxp3+ regulatory T cells. Cytometry A 75(12):1040–1050PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Klein S et al (2010) CD127(low/−) and FoxP3(+) expression levels characterize different regulatory T-cell populations in human peripheral blood. J Invest Dermatol 130(2):492–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Presicce P et al (2010) Association of two clones allows for optimal detection of human FOXP3. Cytometry A 77(6):571–579PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Finak G et al (2016) Standardizing flow cytometry immunophenotyping analysis from the human immunophenotyping consortium. Sci Rep 6:20686PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Maecker HT, Trotter J (2006) Flow cytometry controls, instrument setup, and the determination of positivity. Cytometry A 69(9):1037–1042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Perfetto SP et al (2012) Quality assurance for polychromatic flow cytometry using a suite of calibration beads. Nat Protoc 7(12):2067–2079PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Hoffman RA (2005) Standardization, calibration, and control in flow cytometry. Curr Protoc Cytom. Chapter 1: p. Unit 1.3Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Roederer M (2001) Spectral compensation for flow cytometry: visualization artifacts, limitations, and caveats. Cytometry 45(3):194–205PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Hulspas R et al (2009) Considerations for the control of background fluorescence in clinical flow cytometry. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 76(6):355–364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Scott LE et al (2017) Choosing a new CD4 technology: can statistical method comparison tools influence the decision? Cytometry B Clin Cytom 92(6):465–475PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Langenskiold C et al (2018) Determination of blood cell subtype concentrations from frozen whole blood samples using TruCount beads. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 94(4):660–666PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Nicholson JK et al (1997) Evaluation of a method for counting absolute numbers of cells with a flow cytometer. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 4(3):309–313PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Hensley-McBain T et al (2014) Optimization of a whole blood phenotyping assay for enumeration of peripheral blood leukocyte populations in multicenter clinical trials. J Immunol Methods 411:23–36PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Lenkei R et al (1998) Performance of calibration standards for antigen quantitation with flow cytometry. Cytometry 33(2):188–196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Rossmann ED et al (2007) Performance of calibration standards for antigen quantitation with flow cytometry in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 72(6):450–457PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Gratama JW et al (1998) Flow cytometric quantitation of immunofluorescence intensity: problems and perspectives. European Working Group on Clinical Cell Analysis. Cytometry 33(2):166–178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Wang L et al (2002) Quantitating fluorescence intensity from fluorophores: practical use of MESF values. J Res Natl Inst Stand Technol 107(4):339–353PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Bolstad N, Warren DJ, Nustad K (2013) Heterophilic antibody interference in immunometric assays. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 27(5):647–661PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Perfetto SP et al (2006) Amine reactive dyes: an effective tool to discriminate live and dead cells in polychromatic flow cytometry. J Immunol Methods 313(1–2):199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Perfetto SP et al (2010) Amine-reactive dyes for dead cell discrimination in fixed samples. Curr Protoc Cytom. Chapter 9: p. Unit 9 34Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Maciorowski Z, Chattopadhyay PK, Jain P (2017) Basic multicolor flow cytometry. Curr Protoc Immunol 117:5.4.1–5.4.38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Chattopadhyay PK et al (2012) Brilliant violet fluorophores: a new class of ultrabright fluorescent compounds for immunofluorescence experiments. Cytometry A 81(6):456–466PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Hulspas R et al (2009) Flow cytometry and the stability of phycoerythrin-tandem dye conjugates. Cytometry A 75(11):966–972PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Johansson U, Macey M (2014) Tandem dyes: stability in cocktails and compensation considerations. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 86(3):164–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Baumgarth N, Roederer M (2000) A practical approach to multicolor flow cytometry for immunophenotyping. J Immunol Methods 243(1–2):77–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Nguyen R et al (2013) Quantifying spillover spreading for comparing instrument performance and aiding in multicolor panel design. Cytometry A 83(3):306–315PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Byrd T et al (2015) Polystyrene microspheres enable 10-color compensation for immunophenotyping of primary human leukocytes. Cytometry A 87(11):1038–1046PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Staats JS et al (2014) Toward development of a comprehensive external quality assurance program for polyfunctional intracellular cytokine staining assays. J Immunol Methods 409:44–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Jaimes MC et al (2011) Quality assurance of intracellular cytokine staining assays: analysis of multiple rounds of proficiency testing. J Immunol Methods 363(2):143–157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Lugli E et al (2013) Identification, isolation and in vitro expansion of human and nonhuman primate T stem cell memory cells. Nat Protoc 8(1):33–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Lamoreaux L, Roederer M, Koup R (2006) Intracellular cytokine optimization and standard operating procedure. Nat Protoc 1(3):1507–1516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Bagwell CB (2005) Hyperlog-a flexible log-like transform for negative, zero, and positive valued data. Cytometry A 64(1):34–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Herzenberg LA et al (2006) Interpreting flow cytometry data: a guide for the perplexed. Nat Immunol 7(7):681–685PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Tung JW et al (2004) New approaches to fluorescence compensation and visualization of FACS data. Clin Immunol 110(3):277–283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Novo D, Wood J (2008) Flow cytometry histograms: transformations, resolution, and display. Cytometry A 73(8):685–692PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Richards AJ et al (2014) Setting objective thresholds for rare event detection in flow cytometry. J Immunol Methods 409:54–61PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Chan C et al (2008) Statistical mixture modeling for cell subtype identification in flow cytometry. Cytometry A 73(8):693–701PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Maecker HT et al (2005) Standardization of cytokine flow cytometry assays. BMC Immunol 6:13PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Duke Immune Profiling CoreDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite protocol

Buy options