Back
CD26 and CD68 are not specific markers for DCs or macrophages.
figure
posted on 2024-11-22, 19:00 authored by Bianca Pellegrino, Keren David, Stav Rabani, Bar Lampert, Thuy Tran, Edward Doherty, Marta Piecychna, Roberto Meza-Romero, Lin Leng, Dov Hershkovitz, Arthur A. Vandenbark, Richard Bucala, Shirly Becker-Herman, Idit Shachar(A–K) PBMCs from the spleen of naïve mice were analyzed by flow cytometry. (A) Dead cells were excluded from analysis by Zombie Live/Dead staining. (B) Macrophages and monocytes were gated for F4/80 and LY-6c, respectively. (C) The double negative population was analyzed for CD19 and CD11c to detect DC and B cells. (D) DCs obtained in panel C were analyzed for CD26. (E, F) The CD45+ population was gated for CD26 as a dendritic cell marker. (G, H) CD26+ DCs were analyzed for F4/80, LY-6c, and CD19. (J) The CD45+ population was gated for CD64 as a macrophage marker. (K) CD64+ macrophages were analyzed for CD19 and LY-6c expression. The FCS files uploaded to FlowRepository (http://flowrepository.org/id/FR-FCM-Z8ES).
(TIF)
History
Usage metrics
Categories
Keywords
sup >+novel therapeutic targetnegative breast cancerdecreased antitumor activitycytosolic intracellular domainchronic lymphocytic leukemiaantitumor immune responsetolerogenic dendritic cellscd74 might serveregulatory b cellsmature b cellssignaling cascade resultingdiv >< pimmunosuppressive tumor microenvironmentmice lacking cd74immune cellsnaïve btumor microenvironmentutilizing cd74cd74 promotescd74 inhibitortumor environmenttaken togethersp1 promotorsp1 expressionsp1 bindsresults suggestreduced levelspreviously shownmif secretedmif ).massive infiltrationko micegood candidatefindings indicatedrq ),current study2 populations1β promotor1β lead
Licence
Exports
RefWorks
BibTeX
Ref. manager
Endnote
DataCite
NLM
DC