FAQ  •  Register  •  Login

Cadmium

Forum rules
It is fine to promote your company's reagents. Just make sure they are relevant to CyTOF, and do so in moderation and style :-)
<<

mleipold

Guru

Posts: 2086

Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2013 5:30 pm

Location: Stanford HIMC, CA, USA

Post Thu Dec 05, 2019 5:48 pm

Re: Cadmium

Hi Jahangir,

For barcoding, I would recommend using a minimum number of channels required to achieve the barcoding level that you need. This is because in my testing (and in most antibody-based barcoding schemes, including the CD298/b2m/CD45 pioneered by Felix), I only used one clone for the CD45 epitope. Therefore, each CD45 barcode reagent will be in competition with each other CD45 barcode reagent. Henrik showed this effect nicely in his first barcoding paper, where going from 1 to 2 to 3 barcode channels per barcode had a stepwise decrease in barcode channel signal intensity (and therefore resolution of the barcode). Even in my own data presented earlier, you can see that 1/6 barcodes are almost 1e3, while 3/6 barcodes are lower at just above 1e2. Additionally, the impurity spillovers are additive the more barcodes you use, thus increasing your background.

For example, 6 BC channels would give you 1/6/15/20/15/6/1 possibilities for 0/1/2/3/4/5/6-of-6 codes (remember, Pascal's triangle is a quick way to calculate this). So, if you need 15 BCs, you can do 2-of-6 or 4-of-6. 2-of-6 would save you on reagents, but also have higher signal in each of the channels you used than would the corresponding 4-of-6. Of course, if you wanted 20 barcodes, you have to do 3-of-6 (assuming 6 BC channels).

As such: 7 BC channels give you 1/7/21/35/35/21/7/1 for 0/1/2/3/4/5/6/7-of-7 codes. If you do 3-of-7 or 4-of-7, you get the same number of BC plexing.

Therefore, I don't see why you would do 4-of-7: you a) don't get any increase in barcoding plexing, b) have more reagent cost, and c) have lower signal (lower resolution due to decrease in Pos and potential increase in Neg) per BC channel. To me, these issues don't sufficiently offset any theoretically minor increase in "purity" (especially the lower resolution issue).


Mike
<<

nkhanbham

Master

Posts: 53

Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2015 3:03 pm

Post Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:43 pm

Re: Cadmium

We have also started conjugating with the Cadmiums. We have done 3 separate batches of conjugations and across sessions we got unimpressive yields ranging between 15-30%, while with X8 conjugations we get 40-70% yield. The Fluidigm user guide says expect 10% lower than for lanthanides but we are getting 20-40% lower. How are people getting on for yields?
That aside, the labelling has worked. We are sticking to high abundance surface markers such as CD8 and beta2m. Cd116 conjugates have impressive high intensity staining (>300 ion counts) while Cd106 much lower (<100 ion counts).
NK
<<

mleipold

Guru

Posts: 2086

Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2013 5:30 pm

Location: Stanford HIMC, CA, USA

Post Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:47 pm

Re: Cadmium

Hi Naeem,

I've now done 12 conjugations with the Cd MCP9 kits (basically, I've conjugated on two separate occasions each of the 6 kits I purchased).

The first six were all about 70% recovery.

The second six, 4 were 70%, one was 60%, the other was 55%. No idea why: same CD45 clone, and I had even pooled and then resplit the MCP9 before adding the separate Cd isotopes.


Mike
<<

AdeebR

Grand master

Posts: 171

Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:58 pm

Location: NYC

Post Wed Dec 11, 2019 1:03 am

Re: Cadmium

We've done a total of 8 cadmium conjugations and our recoveries have also been somewhat variable. Perhaps a little lower, but not too far off from what we typically see when conjugating 100ug of antibody with the X8 kits:

B2m, clone 2M2
111Cd: ~43%
112Cd: ~47%
114Cd: ~49%
116Cd: ~58%

CD298, clone REA217
111Cd: ~71%
112Cd: ~62%
114Cd: ~70%
116Cd: ~58%

We've been finding that these work really well for live cell barcoding (higher signal/better barcode separation than we were typically seeing when conjugating the same clones to Pt using monoisotopic cisplatin).

I'd also caution folks to actually read the Fluidigm protocol for the MCP9 kits since there are some minor differences from the X8 kits that we hadn't initially noticed when we first skimmed through it (e.g., use of a 100kDa instead of 50kDa filter for the final washes, and recommendation of a different antibody stabilization buffer).
Adeeb Rahman
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, NYC
Previous

Return to Reagents for CyTOF

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest