Advertisement

Measurement of Predictive Cancer Biomarkers by Flow Cytometry

  • Prashant Ramesh Tembhare
  • Sumeet Gujral
  • H. Krishnamurthy
Chapter

Abstract

Modern biology depends heavily on optics-based instruments to understand the underlying structural and functional details of cells and biomolecules. Flow cytometry is one such technique where the biomarkers identified by imaging techniques can be quantified with great speed. The capacity to resolve, quantify, and sort the distinct population of cells or organelles based on their expression of markers with rapid pace is characteristic of flow cytometry. Laser flow cytometry is commonly used in basic and clinical research as well as diagnostics and disease monitoring. Some of the key applications of flow cytometry are immunophenotyping of surface and intracellular markers, cell cycle analysis, genome estimation, ploidy analysis, chromosome analysis, calcium influx, pH, membrane potential, fluorescent reporter proteins, antigen quantitation, etc.

Keywords

Flow cytometry Technical considerations Cancer biomarkers Solid tumors 

Notes

Glossary

Parameter

This is either an antibody marker (e.g., CD45) or a physical parameter (e.g., side scatter or forward scatter or time).

Gating

It is an application of a “gate” on the events of interest. “Gate” is a digital window in flow cytometry software that allows visualization of selected events.

References

  1. 1.
    Mair F, Hartmann FJ, Mrdjen D, Tosevski V, Krieg C, Becher B. The end of gating? An introduction to automated analysis of high dimensional cytometry data. Eur J Immunol. 2016;46(1):34–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Friis T, Pedersen KB, Hougaard D, Houen G. Immunocytochemical and immunohistochemical staining with peptide antibodies. Methods Mol Biol. 2015;1348:311–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gerdes MJ, Sevinsky CJ, Sood A, et al. Highly multiplexed single-cell analysis of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded cancer tissue. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(29):11982–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gerdes MJ, Gökmen-Polar Y, Sui Y, et al. Single-cell heterogeneity in ductal carcinoma in situ of breast. Mod Pathol. 2018;31(3):406–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moncunill G, Campo JJ, Dobaño C. Quantification of multiple cytokines and chemokines using cytometric bead arrays. Methods Mol Biol. 2014;1172:65–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Scott AM, Allison JP, Wolchok JD. Monoclonal antibodies in cancer therapy. Cancer Immun. 2012;12:14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gujral S, Tembhare P, Badrinath Y, Subramanian PG, Kumar A, Sehgal K. Intracytoplasmic antigen study by flow cytometry in hematolymphoid neoplasm. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2009;52(2):135–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leslie LA, Younes A. Antibody-drug conjugates in hematologic malignancies. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2013;  https://doi.org/10.1200/EdBook_AM.2013.33.e108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Firor AE, Jares A, Ma Y. From humble beginnings to success in the clinic: chimeric antigen receptor-modified T-cells and implications for immunotherapy. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2015;240(8):1087–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Raponi S, De Propris MS, Wai H, et al. An accurate and rapid flow cytometric diagnosis of BCR-ABL positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Haematologica. 2009;94(12):1767–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Campana D. Minimal residual disease monitoring in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Curr Opin Hematol. 2012;19(4):313–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    van Dongen JJ, van der Velden VH, Brüggemann M, Orfao A. Minimal residual disease diagnostics in acute lymphoblastic leukemia: need for sensitive, fast, and standardized technologies. Blood. 2015;125(26):3996–4009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Starlinger P, Brugger P, Reiter C, et al. Discrimination between circulating endothelial cells and blood cell populations with overlapping phenotype reveals distinct regulation and predictive potential in cancer therapy. Neoplasia (New York, NY). 2011;13(10):980–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee J-M, Gordon N, Trepel JB, Lee M-J, Yu M, Kohn EC. Development of a multiparameter flow cytometric assay as a potential biomarker for homologous recombination deficiency in women with high-grade serous ovarian cancer. J Transl Med. 2015;13:239.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chang Q, Hedley D. Emerging applications of flow cytometry in solid tumor biology. Methods. 2012;57(3):359–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tembhare P, Badrinath Y, Ghogale S, Patkar N, Dhole N, Dalavi P, Kunder N, Kumar A, Gujral S, Subramanian PG. A novel and easy FxCycle™ violet based flow cytometric method for simultaneous assessment of DNA ploidy and six-color immunophenotyping. Cytometry A. 2016;89(3):281–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Becht E, Giraldo NA, Dieu-Nosjean MC, Sautès-Fridman C, Fridman WH. Cancer immune contexture and immunotherapy. Curr Opin Immunol. 2016;39:7–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rycaj K, Tang DG. Cell-of-origin of cancer versus cancer stem cells: assays and interpretations. Cancer Res. 2015;75(19):4003–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Prashant Ramesh Tembhare
    • 1
  • Sumeet Gujral
    • 2
  • H. Krishnamurthy
    • 3
  1. 1.Hematopathology Laboratory, Advanced Centre for Treatment, Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Tata Memorial Centre (TMC)Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI) UniversityNavi MumbaiIndia
  2. 2.Department of Pathology, Tata Memorial hospital, Tata Memorial Centre (TMC)Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI) UniversityMumbaiIndia
  3. 3.Central Imaging and Flow Cytometry FacilityNational Centre for Biological Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental ResearchBengaluruIndia

Personalised recommendations