Cited by 71T-cell and B-cell ImmunologyMonoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies ResearchPsoriasis: Treatment and Pathogenesis

The importance of Foxp3 antibody and fixation/permeabilization buffer combinations in identifying CD4+CD25+Foxp3+ regulatory T cells

Open access

Abstract

Foxp3 is a key marker for CD4+ regulatory T cells (T regs) and was used in developing a multiparameter flow cytometric panel to identify T regs. Achieving reproducible staining and analysis first required optimization of Foxp3 staining. We present a comparative study of PCH101, 236A/E7, 3G3, 206D, 150D, and 259D/C7 clones of anti‐human‐Foxp3 antibodies used in combination with five different fixation/permeabilization buffers. Staining for CD25, CD152, and CD127 was also compared between fixation/permeabilization treatments. Promising antibody/buffer combinations were tested in a panel of peripheral blood mononuclear cells from 10 individuals, and then on fresh versus frozen cells from four individuals. Finally, different fluorochromes coupled to two representative antibodies were compared to optimize separation of Foxp3+ from Foxp3− events. Foxp3 gates were set using two gating strategies based on CD127+CD25− “non‐T regs” or based on isotype controls. For Foxp3 staining, the best conditions for fixation/permeabilization were obtained using the eBioscience Foxp3, Imgenex, BioLegend, and BD Foxp3 buffers. Comparing results from 10 subjects, 259D/C7, PCH101, 236A/E7, and 206D antibodies yielded statistically higher levels of Foxp3 cells than those by 150D and 3G3 antibodies (mean = 6.9, 5.1, 4.7, and 3.7% compared with 1.7, and 0.3% of CD25+Foxp3+ events within CD4+ cells, respectively). Importantly, the “nonspecificity” of some antibodies observed with a Foxp3 gate based on isotype controls could be eliminated by setting the Foxp3 gate on “non‐T regs”. Better separation of Foxp3+ and Foxp3− populations was observed using the PCH101 clone coupled to Alexa647 compared with FITC or the 259D/C7 clone coupled to PE compared with Alexa488 fluorochrome. Foxp3 staining can be highly variable and depends on the choice of antibody/buffer pair and the fluorochrome used. Selecting the correct population for setting the Foxp3 gate is critical to avoid including non‐T regs in the Foxp3+ gate. The experiments presented here will aid in optimization of flow cytometry staining panels to quantify T reg frequencies in humans. © 2009 International Society for Advancement of Cytometry

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cyto.a.20815

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is a general consensus that the 236A/E7 and 259D anti-human FOXP3 Ab clones are optimal.

    “Several studies have compared different anti-human FOXP3 Ab clones, and although there is some debate, there is a general consensus that the 236A/E7 and 259D clones are optimal [394-398].”

    From Guidelines for the use of flow cytometry and cell sorting in immunological studies (third edition) (2021) · cites this paper as [396]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) identifies 259D/C7 and 236A/E7 among four clones that yielded the most distinct putative regulatory T-cell populations. It does not establish a general consensus that those two alone are optimal; it also names PCH101 and 206D, and reports that staining depends on the buffer and fluorochrome used. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Law, J. P., Hirschkorn, D. F., Owen, R. E., Biswas, H. H., Norris, P. J., & Lanteri, M. C.
Affiliations
  • Blood Systems Research Institute (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
Lanteri, Marion C.
Venue
Cytometry Part A
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-10-20
Volume
75A
Issue
12
Pages
1040-1050
ISSN
  • 1552-4922 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-4930
OpenAlex
W1966941710
Cited by
71
References
33
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cytometry Part A (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (HL083388-01, R01HL083388)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › T-cell and B-cell Immunology
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Monoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies Research
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Psoriasis: Treatment and Pathogenesis
Keywords
Foxp3, regulatory T cells, CD4+CD25+ T cells, antibody clones, CD127, CD25, CTLA-4, peripheral blood mononuclear cells
MeSH terms
Antibodies, Buffers, Humans, Permeability, Staining and Labeling, CD4 Antigens, Tissue Fixation, T-Lymphocytes, Regulatory, Forkhead Transcription Factors, Interleukin-2 Receptor alpha Subunit

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review