Abstract

Flow cytometer is a powerful cellular analysis tool consists of three main components; fluidics, optics and electronics. Flow cytometry methods have been used in all stages of drug development as like ligand binding assays (LBA). Both LBA and flow cytometry methods require specific interaction between the critical reagents and the analytes. Antibodies and their conjugates, viable dyes and permeabilizing buffer are the main critical reagents in flow cytometry methods. Similarly, antibodies, engineered proteins and their conjugates are the main critical reagents in LBA. The main difference between the two methods is the lack of true reference standards for flow cytometry cellular analysis.

Keywords:

References

1. Litwin V, Marder P. Flow cytometry in the drug development process. In: Flow Cytometry in Drug Discovery and Development. Litwin VMarder P (Eds). John Wiley & Sons, Inc, NJ, USA, 69–240 (2011).
Google Scholar
2. Edwards BS, Young SM, Saunders MJ et al. High-throughput flow cytometry for drug discovery. Expert. Opin. Drug. Discov. 2, 685–696 (2007).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
3. Lyons AB, Blake SJ, Doherty KV. Flow cytometric analysis of cell division by dilution of CFSE and related dyes. Curr. Protoc. Cytom. 64, 9.11.1–9.11.12 (2013).
Google Scholar
4. Darzynkiewicz Z, Bedner E, Smolewski P. Flow cytometry in analysis of cell cycle and apoptosis. Semin. Hematol. 38, 179–193 (2001).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
5. Krutzik PO, Nolan GP. Intracellular phospho-protein staining techniques for flow cytometry: monitoring single cell signaling events. Cytometry 55, 61–70 (2003).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
6. Grossi V, Infantino M, Meacci F et al. Comparison of methods and TAT assessment: volumetric AQUIOS CL and bead-based FACS CANTO II cytometers. Cytometry B Clin. Cytom. 94, 674–678 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
7. Patricia Lovelace P, Maecker HT. Multiparameter intracellular cytokine staining. Methods Mol. Biol. 699, 165–178 (2011).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
8. Brahmer JR, Drake CG, Wollner I et al. Phase I study of single-agent anti-programmed death-1 (MDX-1106) in refractory solid tumors: safety, clinical activity, pharmacodynamics, and immunologic correlates. J. Clin. Oncol. 28, 3167–3175 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
9. Stewart JJ, Green CL, Jones N et al. Role of receptor occupancy assays by flow cytometry in drug development. Cytometry B Clin. Cytom. 90, 110–116 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
10. Donnenberg VS, Ulrich H, Tárnok A. Cytometry in stem cell research and therapy. Cytometry 83, 1–4 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
11. Jamie L, Shirley JL, de Jong YP, Terhorst C, Herzog RW. Immune responses to viral gene therapy vectors. Mol. Ther. 28, 709–722 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
12. Milone MC, Bhoj VG. The pharmacology of T cell therapies. Mol. Ther. Methods Clin. Dev. 8, 210–221 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
13. Mueller KT, Maude SL, Porter DL et al. Cellular kinetics of CTL019 in relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Blood 130, 2317–2325 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
14. Stevenson L, Richards S, Pillutla R et al. 2018 White Paper on recent issues in bioanalysis: focus on flow cytometry, gene therapy, cut points and key clarifications immunogenicity, biomarkers and PK assays. Bioanalysis 10(28), 1973–2001 (2018).
CASGoogle Scholar
15. Engel P, Boumsell L, Balderas R et al. CD Nomenclature 2015: human leukocyte differentiation antigen workshops as a driving force in immunology. J. Immunol. 195, 4555–4563 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
16. Piccoli S, Mehta D, Vitaliti A et al. 2019 White Paper on recent issues in bioanalysis: FDA immunogenicity guidance, gene therapy, critical reagents, biomarkers and flow cytometry validation (Part 3 – recommendations on 2019 FDA immunogenicity guidance, gene therapy bioanalytical challenges, strategies for critical reagent management, biomarker assay validation, flow cytometry validation & CLSI H62). Bioanalysis 11, 2207–2244 (2019).
CASGoogle Scholar
17. O'Hara DM, Theobald V, Egan AC et al. Ligand binding assays in the 21st century laboratory: recommendations for characterization and supply of critical reagents. AAPS J. 14, 316–328 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
18. Garofolo W, Savoie N. The Decennial index of the White Papers in bioanalysis: ‘a decade of recommendations (2007–2016)’. Bioanalysis 9(21), 1681–1704 (2017).
Google Scholar
19. King LE, Farley E, Imazato M et al. Ligand binding assay critical reagents and their stability: recommendations and best practices from the Global Bioanalysis Consortium Harmonization Team. AAPS J. 16, 504–515 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
20. der Strate BV, Longdin R, Geerlings M et al. Best practices in performing flow cytometry in a regulated environment: feedback from experience within the European Bioanalysis Forum. Bioanalysis 9, 1253–1264 (2017).
Google Scholar

Vol. 13, No. 10

Metrics

Downloaded 310 times

History

Received 31 August 2020

Accepted 6 April 2021

Published online 23 April 2021

Published in print May 2021

Information

Keywords

Financial & competing interests disclosure

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

PDF download

Critical reagents in flow cytometry, instrumentation and application in drug discovery development

Abstract

References