minimacs/FACS final

From: Carolyn Jefferiss (prscmj@bath.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Aug 21 2000 - 06:27:41 EST


Dear Everyone,

Does anyone put DNase 1 in their sort sample, to help reduce
clumping, to good effect?

ALSO:-
I enclose the answers to my previous questions for anyone else who is
interested,as attachments, as some went out to the List and some came
directly to me; and a brief summary below.

  And, I apologise if my questions seemed ambiguous. It proved
hazardous to discuss "sorting" by two different methods!
  In retrospect it  would have been clearer to refer to "isolating" on
the minimacs and "sorting" by flow cytometry.

I expect everyone would like a preliminary step to reduce the
negative population so that Flow Cytometric sorting can be performed
more quickly, by getting rid of the  bulk of irrelevant cells, and
this is one of the things  I am trying to do. Asking these questions
is me trying to save on finding the answers empyrically because beads
are so horrendously expensive.

  1) I intended to find out if the magnetic nature of the initial
separation by minimacs would leave magnetic particles on the cells
which would cause them to be attracted to the difflection plates on
the flow cytometer.

  Others have done this and find no interference from the beads,
although 'bead manufacturers' have intimated that if the cytometer
has any magnetic valves ( apparently some do) beads may accumulate
here.

2)Possible  "loss" of label; I haven't been re-labelling the
POSITIVELY selected cells with primary antibody; just adding
conjugated secondary for flow cytometric analysis of purity. e.g.
anti-glycophorinA coated beads  for minimacsing, then anti-IgGFITC
conjugate for FACS checking.

The general expectation of purity obtained with magnetic beads from a
magnetic column seems to be lower than sorting - that is, happy with
70-80% whereas I was hoping for something nearer the 95+% I've had
with Flow cytometry. What puzzled me was how the unlabelled cells
were present, given that they weren't magnetically bound to the
column.
Dead cells binding  non-specifically to beads was one answer. Amount
of antigen present on the cells  was another. However, as others
regularly obtained 90-99% positivity it is probably my technique
which is reducing purity.

  (I follow the manufacturer's recommended wash procedure, but still
don't know  how much more I can wash the column.)

3) Sorting time:  A useful ref. given; " Cytometry 12:268-274 (1991)"
	Also advice;
	for rare cells	- use fluorescence trigger 'enrich' mode and
a high sort rate; followed by a resort with scatter trigger, in
'Normal' mode and a more dilute sample.

















Carolyn Jefferiss Ph. D. Pharmacy and Pharmacology University of Bath Claverton Down Bath BA2 7HY



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 10 2001 - 19:31:29 EST