2.8. Tumor-Infiltrating Immune Cell Analysis Using Flow Cytometry

EG Eun-Jin Go
DK Dong-Hyun Kim
DH Dong Keun Han
request Request a Protocol
ask Ask a question
Favorite

For flow cytometry analysis, tumors were harvested and dissociated into a single-cell suspension by 1-h incubation at 37 °C in digestion buffer containing 2 mg/mL collagenase D (COLLD-RO, Merck, Kenilworth, Darmstadt, Germany) and 40 μg/mL DNase I (10104159001, Merck). The cell clumps were removed through a 70-μm cell strainer (352350, Corning, NY, USA) and a 40-μm nylon mesh. The red blood cells were removed by incubation for 3 min at RT in ACK lysis buffer (A1049201, Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). To exclude dead cells, the dissociated cells were stained with Fixable Viability Dye eFluorTM 450 (65-0863-18, Invitrogen) on ice for 30 min before antibody staining. After washing with FACS buffer (1% fetal bovine serum in PBS), the cells were incubated on ice for 30 min in FACS buffer with the following antibodies: FITC-conjugated anti-CD11b (rat, clone M1/70, Invitrogen), FITC-conjugated anti-CD4 (rat, clone RM4-5, Invitrogen), Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated anti-mouse iNOS (rat, clone CXNFT, Invitrogen), PE-conjugated anti-mouse CD8a (rat, clone 53-6.7, Invitrogen), PE-conjugated anti-mouse CD86 (rat, clone B7-2, Invitrogen), PE-conjugated anti-mouse F4/80 (rat, clone BM8, Invitrogen), PerCP/Cy5.5-conjugated anti-mouse Ly-6C (rat, clone HK1.4, Invitrogen), PerCP/Cy5.5-conjugated anti-mouse CD45 (rat, clone 30-F11, Invitrogen), APC-conjugated anti-mouse CD3 (rat, clone 17A2, Invitrogen), APC-conjugated anti-mouse CD11c (armenian hamster, clone N418, Invitrogen), APC-conjugated anti-mouse Ly-6G (rat, clone 1A8-Ly6g, Invitrogen), Alexa Fluor 700-conjugated anti-mouse Arginase 1 (rat, clone A1exF5, Invitrogen), APC/eFluor 780-conjugated anti-mouse CD11b (rat, clone M1/70, Invitrogen), APC/Fire750-conjugated anti-mouse CD80 (armenian hamster, clone 16-10A1, BioLegend), or eFluor 506-conjugated anti-mouse CD45 (rat, clone 30-F11, Invitrogen). We analyzed the following cell subsets: M1-like TAMs, gated as viability dye/CD45+/CD11b+/Ly-6G/Ly-6C/F4/80+/iNOS+/Arg1 cells; M2-like TAMs, gated as viability dye/CD45+/CD11b+/Ly-6G/Ly-6C/F4/80+/iNOS/Arg1+; TILs, gated as viability dye/CD45+/CD3+/CD8+ or CD4+ cells; activated DCs, gated as viability dye/CD45+/CD11c+/CD86+ or CD80+ cells. The stained cells were analyzed using a CytoFLEX flow cytometer (Beckman Coulter, Brea, CA, USA), and the data were analyzed with FlowJo software (Tree Star, San Carlos, CA, USA).

Do you have any questions about this protocol?

Post your question to gather feedback from the community. We will also invite the authors of this article to respond.

post Post a Question
0 Q&A