Results were compared with the flow cytometric differential.\n\nResults: The flow cytometric WBC and differential correlated well with the Sysmex XE2100 hematology analyzer and gave comparable results to the manual differential. Areas of greatest discordance included enumeration of populations present at low numbers and misclassification of cells with unusual morphology by the manual method. This study describes a novel single-tube flow cytometric method for performing a WBC count and 8-part differential that performs well with both normal and

difficult patient samples. These findings confirm the results of prior studies supporting the use of a flow cytometric differential as an improved reference method for the WBC differential and extend prior efforts by allowing positive identification of most cell populations. (C) 2010 International Clinical Cytometry Society”
“EBV-miR-BART1 has been found learn more to be highly expressed in some cancers including nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), but its exact roles in the pathogenesis of NPC remain unclear. Here, we did RNA deep sequencing to compare the gene expression profile between EBV-miR-BART1-expressing CNE1 cells and the control cells to determine the possible effects of EBV-miR-BART1 in NPC. Gene expression profiling analysis unexpectedly showed a significant

number of up- and down-modulated metabolism-associated genes, such as G6PD, SAT1, ASS1, PAST1, FUT1, SGPL1, DHRS3, B4GALT1, PHGDH, IDH2, PISD, UGT8, LDHB and GALNT1, in EBV-miR-BART1-expressing GSK2126458 clinical trial NPC cells, which were next confirmed by RT-qPCR. Moreover, of these metabolism-genes, PCI-34051 PSAT1 and PHGDH expression levels were significantly upregulated and most of other genes were obviously up-expressed

in NPC specimens compared with chronic nasopharyngitis (CNP) tissues. Collectively, we for the first time found the effects of EBV-miR-BART1 on the expression of mechanism-associated genes in NPC, suggesting a novel role of EBV-miR-BART1 in cancer metabolism, which remains to be fully elucidated. (c) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.”
“We used three kinds of polymers that interact with living cells in different modes: poly(ethylene glycol)-conjugated phospholipid (PEG-lipid) and poly(vinyl alcohol) carrying alkyl side chains (PVA-alkyl), expected to anchor to the membrane lipid bilayer through hydrophobic interactions; N-hydroxysuccinimidyl-PEG (PEG-NHS), which covalently bonds with all kinds of membrane proteins having amino groups on cell surfaces; and polyelectrolytes, poly(ethylene imine) (PEI) and carboxylated PVA (PVA-COOH), which interact with cells electrostatically. CCRF-CEM (T-cell like) and HEK293 (adherent cell) cell lines were used. We followed the surface dynamics of fluorescently labeled polymers on living cells over time using confocal laser scanning microscopy and flow cytometry. PEI destroyed cells, while PVA-COOH did not interact with cells.