Powered by OpenAIRE graph
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Congenital Anomaliesarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
Congenital Anomalies
Article . 2002 . Peer-reviewed
License: Wiley Online Library User Agreement
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 2 versions

Enrichment of fetal cells from maternal blood by magnetic activated cell sorting (MACS) with fetal cell specific antibodies: One‐step versus two‐step MACS

Authors: Xaio Xi, Zhao; Yasuhiko, Ozaki; Nobuhiro, Suzumori; Tsuyoshi, Sato; Kaoru, Suzumori;

Enrichment of fetal cells from maternal blood by magnetic activated cell sorting (MACS) with fetal cell specific antibodies: One‐step versus two‐step MACS

Abstract

ABSTRACT  We report here the results of fetal cell enrichment from maternal blood in 58 pregnant women by the use of magnetic activated cell sorting (MACS) with erythroblast‐specific and/or maternal cell specific antibodies. Two approaches were compared; one‐step MACS to enrich CD71+ (a membrane‐bound marker) or GPA+ (another marker, glycophorin A) fetal cells versus two‐step MACS to deplete CD14+ maternal cells and subsequently to enrich fetal (CD71+ or GPA+) cells. The existence of fetal cells was ensured by both FISH with Y‐specific probes and karyotyping of respective anuniotic and/or chorionic vullus cells, the results being applied for comparison of detection rate for XY fetuses between the two MACS procedures.In 24 (38.8%) of the 58 blood samples examined, Y‐positive cells were observed by FISH, whereas there were 38 true XY fetuses later confirmed by karyotyping, including two cases of 47, XY,+21. On the other hand, in Y‐negative cells by FISH, there were two cases of 47, XX,+18. The average number of cells sorted did not differ among one‐step MACS procedures with anti‐CD14, anti‐CD71 and anti‐GPA antibodies. With the latter, 12 (75%) of 16 Y‐positive fetuses were detected, while only one (20%) of 5 Y‐positive fetuses was detected by two‐step MACS with anti‐CD14/anti‐GPA antibodies. The detection rate significantly varied (p = 0.0024) between the two procedures, although the numbers of cases examined were small. There was no statistical difference (p > 0.05) between one‐step and two‐step MACS with other combinations of antibodies. These findings indicate that one‐step MACS using the anti‐GPA antibody is more effective than two step MACS for enrichment of fetal cells from maternal blood.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Adult, Immunomagnetic Separation, Pregnancy, High-Risk, Chromosome Mapping, Fetal Blood, Hematopoietic Stem Cells, Antigens, Differentiation, B-Lymphocyte, Fetus, Antibody Specificity, Antigens, CD, Pregnancy, Karyotyping, Receptors, Transferrin, Humans, Female, Chromosomes, Human, Pair 18, In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence, Maternal Age

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    citations
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    4
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
citations
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
4
Average
Average
Average