Search

IntroductionMonitoring of innate myeloid cells (IMC) is broadly applied in basic and translational research, as well as in diagnostic patient care. Due to their immunophenotypic heterogeneity and biological plasticity, analysis of IMC populations typically requires large panels of markers. Currently, two cytometry-based techniques allow for the simultaneous detection of ≥40 markers: spectral flow cytometry (SFC) and mass cytometry (MC). However, little is known about the comparability of SFC and MC in studying IMC populations.MethodsWe evaluated the performance of two SFC and MC panels, which contained 21 common markers, for the identification and subsetting of blood IMC populations. Based on unsupervised clustering analysis, we systematically identified 24 leukocyte populations, including 21 IMC subsets, regardless of the cytometry technique.ResultsOverall, comparable results were observed between the two technologies regarding the relative distribution of these cell populations and the staining resolution of individual markers (Pearson’s ρ=0.99 and 0.55, respectively). However, minor differences were observed between the two techniques regarding intra-measurement variability (median coefficient of variation of 42.5% vs. 68.0% in SFC and MC, respectively; pvs. 159 min) and lower recovery rates (median 53.1% vs. 26.8%) associated with SFC vs. MC.DiscussionAltogether, our results show a good correlation between SFC and MC for the identification, enumeration and characterization of IMC in blood, based on large panels (>20) of antibody reagents.

Nowadays, massive genomics and transcriptomics data can be generated at the single-cell level. However, proteomics in this setting is still a big challenge. Despite the great improvements in sensitivity and performance of mass spectrometry instruments and the better knowledge on sample preparation processing, it is widely acknowledged that multistep proteomics workflows may lead to substantial sample loss, especially when working with paucicellular samples. Still, in clinical fields, frequently limited sample amounts are available for downstream analysis, thereby hampering comprehensive characterization at protein level. To aim at better protein and peptide recoveries, we compare existing and novel approaches in the multistep sample preparation protocols for mass spectrometry studies, from sample collection, cell lysis, protein quantification, and electrophoresis/ staining to protein digestion, peptide recovery, and LC-MS/MS instruments. From this critical evaluation, we conclude that the recent innovations and technologies, together with high quality management of samples, make proteomics on paucicellular samples possible, which will have immediate impact for the proteomics community.