Abstract
目的
探讨伊红-5′-马来酰亚胺(EMA)为标记流式细胞术检测遗传性球形红细胞的灵敏性和特异性,并对试剂和样本稳定性进行验证。
方法
对80例遗传性球形红细胞增多症(HS)和44例非HS患者外周血样本全部采用EMA标记流式细胞术检测、红细胞渗透脆性试验和酸化甘油溶解试验三种方法进行检测,比较三种方法的灵敏性和特异性,探讨EMA标记流式细胞术检测的可行性。并观察EMA及样本在不同储存条件下的稳定性。
结果
通过检测124例样本得出,EMA标记流式细胞术检测的灵敏性和特异性分别为0.925和0.954,红细胞渗透脆性试验分别为0.950和0.455,酸化甘油溶解试验为1.000和0.318。红细胞渗透脆性试验和酸化甘油溶解试验的灵敏性稍高于EMA流式检测方法,但特异性差,不能明确区分球形红细胞增多是否为HS。EMA对温度很敏感,−80 °C储存180 d较4 °C存储1 d稳定。HS样本的稳定性较好,4 °C放置6 d、室温条件放置3 d不会影响结果的判定。
结论
EMA标记流式细胞术检测HS具有良好的灵敏性和特异性,−80 °C储存EMA较为稳定,须在样本4 °C放置6 d内、室温条件放置3 d内完成检测。
Keywords: 流式细胞术, 伊红-5′-马来酰亚胺, 球形红细胞增多,遗传性
Abstract
Objective
To investigate the sensitivity and specificity of eosin-5′-maleimide (EMA) assay for the diagnosis of hereditary spherocytosis (HS), and to verify the stability of reagent and samples.
Methods
EMA flow cytometry test, NaCl-osmotic fragility test and acidified glycerol lysis test were performed using peripheral blood samples from 80 patients with HS and 44 patients with other blood diseases, the sensitivity and specificity of the three methods were compared, and the feasibility of EMA binding test was estimated. The stability of EMA reagent and HS samples stored at different temperatures were tested.
Results
Among the 124 tested samples, the sensitivity and specificity of EMA binding test was 0.925 and 0.954, that of NaCl-osmotic fragility test was 0.950 and 0.455, and that of acidified glycerol lysis test was 1.000 and 0.318, respectively. Although the sensitivity of NaCl-osmotic fragility test and acidified glycerol lysis test was a little higher than that of EMA binding test, the specificity of the former two methods was poor, they couldn't clearly distinguish whether spherocytosis is hereditary spherocytosis. The experiment results showed that EMA was sensitive to the temperature and shouldn't be stored in a small aliquots at −80 °C over a period of 6 months. The stability of the HS sample was better, 6 days storage at 4 °C and 3 days storage at room temperature had no influence on the results.
Conclusion
EMA binding test by flow cytometry showed good sensitivity and specificity for HS diagnosis. EMA reagent should be stored at−80 °C and the HS samples should be tested within 6 days storage at 4 °C and 3 days at room temperature.
Keywords: Flow cytometry; Eosin-5′-maleimide; Spherocytosis, hereditary
遗传性球形红细胞增多症(HS)是一种红细胞膜异常的遗传性溶血性疾病,这类球形红细胞以α-血影蛋白、β-血影蛋白、锚蛋白、带3蛋白、蛋白4.1和蛋白4.2等膜骨架蛋白异常为主[1],通过脾脏时极易发生溶血,溶血程度差异很大。目前,实验室诊断HS的常用方法有血常规与血涂片检测、红细胞渗透脆性试验及酸化甘油溶解试验,但均容易漏诊无明显溶血表现的轻型HS患者[2]–[5],同时不能区分原发和继发性HS(例如自身免疫性溶血性贫血伴有球形红细胞增多)[6]–[8]。近年来利用流式细胞术检测伊红-5′-马来酰亚胺(EMA)标记红细胞成为诊断HS的新手段[9]。EMA荧光探针与带3蛋白复合物相互作用,可直接靶向HS的结构缺陷[10],具有较高的灵敏性和特异性[11]–[19]。本研究中我们收集我院确诊HS及非HS的血液病患者外周血标本,采用EMA标记流式细胞术检测、酸化甘油溶解试验及红细胞渗透脆性试验进行再诊断,比较各试验的灵敏性及特异性,验证流式细胞术检测EMA标记红细胞在HS中的诊断价值;并通过观察不同条件下试剂及样本的稳定性,探讨试验的适宜条件。
对象和方法
一、研究对象
以2014年2月至10月我院确诊的HS及非HS患者外周血标本为研究对象,其中HS患者80例,男女比为1∶1.11,中位年龄15(1~65)岁。非HS患者44例,男女比为1∶1.44,中位年龄35(29~72)岁。
二、方法
1.EMA标记的流式细胞术:取HS及非HS患者外周血2 µl, PBS洗涤1次,270×g离心5 min,加入0.5 mg/ml EMA流式荧光探针(美国life technologies公司产品)20 µl,室温避光孵育1 h,用含0.5%牛血清白蛋白的PBS液洗涤沉淀3次,270×g离心5 min,弃上清,用500 µl PBS重悬细胞,上流式细胞仪(美国Beckman Coulter公司产品)进行检测。FITC通道获取50 000个细胞,应用Navios软件进行数据分析。以检测当日6份非贫血患者外周血样本[平均荧光强度(MCF)变异系数<6%]为阴性对照,并设空白对照。每组设2个复管。
参照文献[14]标准并结合工作实际,我们定义:MCF降低的百分比>16%为HS,<16%为非HS。
2.酸化甘油溶解试验:取室温平衡的0.1 mol/L磷酸盐缓冲液5 ml,加入12 µl红细胞制成红细胞悬液;取0.1 mol/L磷酸盐缓冲液3 ml于比色杯中调零;取0.3 mol/L甘油缓冲液2 ml放入另一比色杯中,加入红细胞悬液1 ml,快速混匀,用625 nm波长连续测定吸光度(A)值,10 s后开始读数,每10 s读数1次至290 s,记录A值下降至50%初始值所用时间。生物参考区间:>290 s。
3.红细胞渗透脆性试验:取11支小试管,分别加入0.24%、0.28%、0.32%、0.36%、0.40%、0.44%、0.48%、0.52%、0.56%、0.60%、0.90%的氯化钠溶液1 ml;各管再加入全血20 µl;混匀后置冰箱中24 h观察结果。结果判读:①不溶血:上清液无红色;②开始溶血:上清液开始呈透明红色且管底有红细胞;③完全溶血:溶液为透明红色且管底无红细胞或仅有少量红细胞残骸。生物参考区间(氯化钠溶液浓度):开始溶血:0.44%~0.48%;完全溶血:0.28%~0.36%。
三、分组试验
为了验证不同条件下试剂和样本的稳定性,我们分组如下进行试验:①以−80 °C储存180 d和4 °C储存1 d的EMA分别标记同一样本,共检测12份(包括3份HS),观察不同温度EMA的稳定性;②以4 °C储存1 d和4 °C储存2 d的EMA分别标记同一样本,共检测12份(包括3份HS),观察同一温度放置不同时间EMA的稳定性;③EMA标记样本后当天(0 d)及4 °C条件下放置1~5 d进行检测,共检测7份样本,包括3份HS和4份非HS,观察EMA标记样本后不同时间的稳定性;④样本采集当天(0 d)及4 °C条件下放置1~6 d后予EMA标记并检测,共检测10份样本,包括4份HS和6份非HS,观察样本于4 °C条件下放置不同时间的稳定性;⑤样本采集当天(0 d)及室温条件下放置1~6 d后予EMA标记并检测,共检测9份标本,包括3份HS和6份非HS,观察样本于室温条件下放置不同时间的稳定性。
四、统计学处理
应用SPSS 13.0软件进行统计学分析。灵敏性和特异性采用四格表法计算,采用ROC曲线法确定cut-off值。
结果
一、诊断试验结果
三种试验分别检测已确诊的80例HS及44例非HS患者,EMA流式细胞术检测假阴性率为7.5%(80例中6例),假阳性率为4.5%(44例中2例),灵敏性为0.925,特异性为0.954,约登指数为0.879,ROC曲线下面积及cut-off值分别为0.972与14.675%;红细胞渗透脆性试验的假阴性率为5.0%(80例中4例),假阳性率为54.5%(44例中24例),灵敏性为0.950,特异性为0.455,约登指数为0.404,ROC曲线下面积为0.849(开始溶血)、0.696(完全溶血),cut-off值为0.540(开始溶血)、0.340(完全溶血)(均为氯化钠溶液浓度);酸化甘油溶解试验中假阴性率为0,但假阳性率为68.2%(44例中30例),灵敏性为1.000,特异性为0.318,约登指数为0.318,ROC曲线下面积及cut-off值分别为0.276与291 s。
二、稳定性验证
1.试剂的稳定性:−80 °C储存180 d、4 °C储存1 d及4 °C储存2 d的EMA分别标记样本红细胞并上机检测,3组红细胞膜上MCF分别为46.99±7.67、29.20±6.90及20.22±6.71,随着储存温度的升高及存放时间的延长降低。将EMA标记样本红细胞后当天(0 d)及4 °C条件下放置1~5 d分别上流式细胞仪进行检测,结果显示EMA标记3份HS标本及4份非HS标本第0~5天红细胞膜上MCF无明显变化(图1),提示EMA与细胞结合后较为稳定。
图1. 流式细胞术检测伊红-5′-马来酰亚胺标记遗传性球形红细胞增多症(HS)及非HS样本后于4 °C条件下放置不同时间红细胞膜平均荧光强度变化.
2.样本的稳定性:为观察待测样本的稳定性,我们将待测样本分别置于4 °C及室温条件下,取当天(0 d)及放置1~6 d的样本与EMA结合并上机检测,观察MCF的变化。结果见图2、3,样本在4 °C条件下放置0~6 d检测的结果仍然很稳定,并不会影响结果的判断。非HS患者室温条件下放置0~6 d红细胞膜表面的MCF变化不大,但HS患者的红细胞膜表面的MCF在室温放置的第4天时开始显著下降。
图2. 流式细胞术检测遗传性球形红细胞增多症(HS)及非HS样本于4 °C条件下放置不同时间后予伊红-5′-马来酰亚胺标记红细胞膜平均荧光强度变化.
图3. 流式细胞术检测遗传性球形红细胞增多症(HS)及非HS样本于室温下放置不同时间后予伊红-5′-马来酰亚胺标记红细胞膜平均荧光强度变化.
讨论
HS中红细胞异常是由于血影蛋白、带3蛋白、锚蛋白和蛋白4.2中的一种或几种蛋白联合缺陷导致细胞膜骨架蛋白异常,从而使红细胞变形能力降低。EMA中马来酰亚胺的一部分与带3蛋白胞外第一个环上的Lys-430共价结合,伊红所带的发光团与带3蛋白跨膜核心相连,带3蛋白N-端的胞质区与锚蛋白和蛋白4.2相互作用,所以EMA在与带3蛋白结合的同时,也探测到了锚蛋白和蛋白4.2,从而提高了此方法检测HS的灵敏性和特异性[11]。
酸化甘油溶解试验和红细胞渗透脆性试验检测HS的原理是利用患者中红细胞的表面积与体积比降低,测定一定时间内红细胞裂解的比例或程度;这类方法易受到其他不相关红细胞骨架缺陷的影响,不能检测出轻微或不典型的HS。红细胞渗透脆性试验虽然灵敏性稍高于EMA流式细胞术检测,但其特异性太低,阳性结果可由免疫异常或其他疾病引起。综合以上试验结果,可以看出EMA作为特异性荧光探针检测遗传性球形红细胞,具有很好的灵敏性和特异性,在HS的临床诊断辅助检查方面具有明显的优越性。
同时,酸化甘油溶解试验受温度影响较大,最佳温度25 °C。红细胞渗透脆性试验耗时长,需要24 h。且以上两种方法操作相对繁琐,所需样本量较EMA流式细胞术多。EMA流式细胞术检测所需样本量少(仅4 µl)且可储存;检测速度快,2 h内即可出结果;标本在4 °C放置1周时间不会影响结果的判定;实验流程简单。有文献报道通过运输过程的样本,检测结果不受影响[20]。
但是,EMA本身对温度敏感,需要−80 °C冰箱储存不超过180 d,所以根据日检测标本数量对试剂进行小剂量分装十分必要。试剂的保存是影响实验结果的重要因素,应予以重视。同时我们对样本的稳定性做了多方面验证,结果显示EMA在−80 °C条件下能很好地保持其稳定性,并且与样本结合后在4 °C条件下放置2~3 d仍然稳定。如果不能立即处理采集好的样品,室温放置须不超过4 d或4 °C冰箱存储不超过6 d。各实验室可以根据样本数量合理安排试验进度。
References
- 1.Mariani M, Barcellini W, Vercellati C, et al. Clinical and hematologic features of 300 patients affected by hereditary spherocytosis grouped according to the type of the membrane protein defect[J] Haematologica. 2008;93(9):1310–1317. doi: 10.3324/haematol.12546. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Parpart AK, Lorenz PB, Parpart ER, et al. THE OSMOTIC RESISTANCE (FRAGILITY) OF HUMAN RED CELLS[J] J Clin Invest. 1947;26(4):636–640. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Cynober T, Mohandas N, Tchernia G. Red cell abnormalities in hereditary spherocytosis: relevance to diagnosis and understanding of the variable expression of clinical severity[J] J Lab Clin Med. 1996;128(3):259–269. doi: 10.1016/s0022-2143(96)90027-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Perrotta S, Gallagher PG, Mohandas N. Hereditary spherocytosis[J] Lancet. 2008;372(9647):1411–1426. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61588-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Crisp RL, Solari L, Vota D, et al. A prospective study to assess the predictive value for hereditary spherocytosis using five laboratory tests (cryohemolysis test, eosin-5′-maleimide flow cytometry, osmotic fragility test, autohemolysis test, and SDS-PAGE) on 50 hereditary spherocytosis families in Argentina[J] Ann Hematol. 2011;90(6):625–634. doi: 10.1007/s00277-010-1112-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Korones D, Pearson HA. Normal erythrocyte osmotic fragility in hereditary spherocytosis[J] J Pediatr. 1989;114(2):264–266. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3476(89)80794-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Brabec V, Marík T, Feixová H, et al. [New tests for laboratory diagnosis of spherocytosis][J] Vnitr Lek. 1991;37(11-12):883–887. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Apel D, Mariańska B, Maj S. [Diagnostic value of acidified glycerol lysis test (AGLT) in hereditary spherocytosis and selected hematologic diseases][J] Acta Haematol Pol. 1993;24(3):267–271. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Bolton-Maggs PH, Stevens RF, Dodd NJ, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of hereditary spherocytosis[J] Br J Haematol. 2004;126(4):455–474. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2004.05052.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.King MJ, Smythe JS, Mushens R. Eosin-5-maleimide binding to band 3 and Rh-related proteins forms the basis of a screening test for hereditary spherocytosis[J] Br J Haematol. 2004;124(1):106–113. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2141.2003.04730.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.King MJ, Behrens J, Rogers C, et al. Rapid flow cytometric test for the diagnosis of membrane cytoskeleton-associated haemolytic anaemia[J] Br J Haematol. 2000;111(3):924–933. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Kedar PS, Colah RB, Kulkarni S, et al. Experience with eosin-5′-maleimide as a diagnostic tool for red cell membrane cytoskeleton disorders[J] Clin Lab Haematol. 2003;25(6):373–376. doi: 10.1046/j.0141-9854.2003.00557.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Stoya G, Gruhn B, Vogelsang H, et al. Flow cytometry as a diagnostic tool for hereditary spherocytosis[J] Acta Haematol. 2006;116(3):186–191. doi: 10.1159/000094679. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Girodon F, Garçon L, Bergoin E, et al. Usefulness of the eosin-5′-maleimide cytometric method as a first-line screening test for the diagnosis of hereditary spherocytosis: comparison with ektacytometry and protein electrophoresis[J] Br J Haematol. 2008;140(4):468–470. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2007.06944.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.King MJ, Telfer P, MacKinnon H, et al. Using the eosin-5-maleimide binding test in the differential diagnosis of hereditary spherocytosis and hereditary pyropoikilocytosis[J] Cytometry B Clin Cytom. 2008;74(4):244–250. doi: 10.1002/cyto.b.20413. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.King MJ, Bruce L, Whiteway A. The mutant erythrocyte band 3 protein in Southeast Asian ovalocytosis does not bind eosin-5-maleimide[J] Int J Lab Hematol. 2009;31(1):116–117. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-553x.2007.01019.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Kar R, Mishra P, Pati HP. Evaluation of eosin-5-maleimide flow cytometric test in diagnosis of hereditary spherocytosis[J] Int J Lab Hematol. 2010;32(1 Pt 2):8–16. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-553X.2008.01098.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Crisp RL, Solari L, Vota D, et al. A prospective study to assess the predictive value for hereditary spherocytosis using five laboratory tests (cryohemolysis test, eosin-5′-maleimide flow cytometry, osmotic fragility test, autohemolysis test, and SDS-PAGE) on 50 hereditary spherocytosis families in Argentina[J] Ann Hematol. 2011;90(6):625–634. doi: 10.1007/s00277-010-1112-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.King MJ, Jepson MA, Guest A, et al. Detection of hereditary pyropoikilocytosis by the eosin-5-maleimide (EMA)-binding test is attributable to a marked reduction in EMA-reactive transmembrane proteins[J] Int J Lab Hematol. 2011;33(2):205–211. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-553X.2010.01270.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Bianchi P, Fermo E, Vercellati C, et al. Diagnostic power of laboratory tests for hereditary spherocytosis: a comparison study in 150 patients grouped according to molecular and clinical characteristics[J] Haematologica. 2012;97(4):516–523. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2011.052845. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]