Premium
National standardization of ZAP‐70 determination by flow cytometry: The French experience
Author(s) -
GarffTavernier Magali Le,
Ticchioni Michel,
Brissard Martine,
Salmon Céline,
Raynaud Sophie,
Davi Frédéric,
Bernard Alain,
MerleBéral Hélène,
AjchenbaumCymbalista Florence,
Letestu Rémi
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
cytometry part b: clinical cytometry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.646
H-Index - 61
eISSN - 1552-4957
pISSN - 1552-4949
DOI - 10.1002/cyto.b.20350
Subject(s) - clone (java method) , flow cytometry , antibody , monoclonal antibody , conjugated system , blot , biology , immunology , microbiology and biotechnology , medicine , genetics , chemistry , dna , gene , polymer , organic chemistry
Abstract Background: ZAP‐70, after being considered as a potential surrogate for VH mutational status, has seen its own prognostic value emerge. We aimed at standardizing a simple, fast, and reproducible flow cytometry method. Methods: AntiZAP‐70 antibody 2F3.2 was used with indirect labeling and secondary anti‐IgG2a antibody. The reference values for the expression of the results were determined on 45 normal blood samples. ZAP‐70 protein expression was investigated in 192 CLL samples. The indirect technique was compared with FITC‐conjugated 2F3.2 clone, and with clone 1E7.2‐FITC, ‐PE or ‐AlexaFluor 488. Results: Using FITC or PE‐conjugated antibodies, 2F3.2 and 1E7.2 clones allowed a much less adequate discrimination between positive and negative cells and discordant cases were most likely true negative cases. Using the AlexaFluor 488 conjugated 1E7.2 clone, the discordant cases were mostly negative with the conjugated antibody and positive with the 2F3.2 clone but Western blotting or RNA microarray confirmed discordant cases were false negative with the conjugated antibody. Subsequently, recommendations were used by 13 centers participating in an interlaboratory quality control protocol. The use of MFI ratio appeared to be more reliable. Conclusions: Results suggested that slight differences in the procedure had little impact on the interpretation in characteristic cases; however, careful interpretation was required for values close to threshold. © 2006 International Society for Analytical Cytology