Comparison of single- and dual-platform approaches to enumerate CD34(+) cells in bone marrow and mobilized peripheral blood stem cells
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 27, 2026
Flow Cytometry Analysis of Murine Bone Marrow Hematopoietic Stem and Progenitor Cells and Stromal Niche Cells
Published on: September 28, 2022
Josefa Piedras-Ross1, Eucario León-Rodríguez, Sergio Sánchez-Guerrero
1Departamento de Hematología y Oncología, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico. piedras@quetzal.innsz.mx
Background:
Different flow cytometric methods have been developed to derive absolute CD34(+) cells in predicting transplant outcome. Two techniques for preparing cells for quantification of CD34(+) cells were compared.
Methods:
Enumeration of CD34(+) cells in 16 samples of bone marrow (BM) and in 29 samples of mobilized peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) obtained by leukapheresis was assessed simultaneously by single-platform (ProCOUNT kit) and dual-platform (Milan protocol) approaches within the first 3 h of collection.
Results:
Absolute number of CD34(+) cells obtained in PBSC and BM using single- and dual-platform methods showed high determination coefficients as follows: for PBSC, slope = 1.0515 +/- 0.048, y-intercept = 88.638 +/- 52.45, and r(2) = 0.941, and for BM, slope = 1.0203 +/- 0.093, y-intercept = 122.25 +/- 20.65, and r(2) = 0.878. There were no statistically significant differences in absolute number of CD34(+) cells from PBSC between single-platform (mean 575/microL, range 70-3683/microL) and dual-platform (786/microL, range 51-3804/microL) assays. In contrast, absolute number of CD34(+) cells from BM was significantly lower (p = 0.0002) when enumerated by ProCount kit (135/microL, 14-758/microL) than with dual-platform method (260/microL, 74-889/microL).
Conclusions:
Both approaches can be used indistinctly to estimate absolute number of CD34(+) cells in PBSC but not in BM.
