BackgroundHigh quality genetic material is an essential pre-requisite when analyzing gene expression using microarray technology. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) are frequently used for genomic analyses, but several factors can affect the integrity of nucleic acids prior to their extraction, including the methods of PBMC collection and isolation. Due to the lack of the relevant data published, we compared the Ficoll-Paque density gradient centrifugation and BD Vacutainer cell preparation tube (CPT) protocols to determine if either method offered a distinct advantage in preparation of PBMC-derived immune cell subsets for their use in gene expression analysis. We evaluated the yield and purity of immune cell subpopulations isolated from PBMC derived by both methods, the quantity and quality of extracted nucleic acids, and compared gene expression in PBMC and individual immune cell types from Ficoll and CPT isolation protocols using Affymetrix microarrays.ResultsThe mean yield and viability of fresh PBMC acquired by the CPT method (1.16 × 106 cells/ml, 93.3 %) were compatible to those obtained with Ficoll (1.34 × 106 cells/ml, 97.2 %). No differences in the mean purity, recovery, and viability of CD19+ (B cells), CD8+ (cytotoxic T cells), CD4+ (helper T cell) and CD14+ (monocytes) positively selected from CPT- or Ficoll-isolated PBMC were found. Similar quantities of high quality RNA and DNA were extracted from PBMC and immune cells obtained by both methods. Finally, the PBMC isolation methods tested did not impact subsequent recovery and purity of individual immune cell subsets and, importantly, their gene expression profiles.ConclusionsOur findings demonstrate that the CPT and Ficoll PBMC isolation protocols do not differ in their ability to purify high quality immune cell subpopulations. Since there was no difference in the gene expression profiles between immune cells obtained by these two methods, the Ficoll isolation can be substituted by the CPT protocol without conceding phenotypic changes of immune cells and compromising the gene expression studies. Given that the CPT protocol is less elaborate, minimizes cells’ handling and processing time, this method offers a significant operating advantage, especially in large-scale clinical studies aiming at dissecting gene expression in PBMC and PBMC-derived immune cell subpopulations.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12865-015-0113-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

There is a tremendous focus on the application of nanomaterials for the treatment of cancer. Nonprimate models are conventionally used to assess the biomedical utility of nanomaterials. However, these animals often lack an intact immunological background, and the tumors in these animals do not develop spontaneously. We introduce a preclinical woodchuck hepatitis virus-induced liver cancer model as a platform for nanoparticle (NP)-based in vivo experiments. Liver cancer development in these out-bred animals occurs as a result of persistent viral infection, mimicking human hepatitis B virus-induced HCC development. We highlight how this model addresses key gaps associated with other commonly used tumor models. We employed this model to (1) track organ biodistribution of gold NPs after intravenous administration, (2) examine their subcellular localization in the liver, (3) determine clearance kinetics, and (4) characterize the identity of hepatic macrophages that take up NPs using RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq). We found that the liver and spleen were the primary sites of NP accumulation. Subcellular analyses revealed accumulation of NPs in the lysosomes of CD14+ cells. Through RNA-seq, we uncovered that immunosuppressive macrophages within the woodchuck liver are the major cell type that take up injected NPs. The woodchuck-HCC model has the potential to be an invaluable tool to examine NP-based immune modifiers that promote host anti-tumor immunity.

Hybrid immunity induced by vaccination following recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection is more robust than immunity induced by either infection or vaccination alone. To investigate how infection severity influenced the strength and character of subsequent vaccine-induced humoral or cellular immune responses against SARS-CoV-2, we assessed humoral and cellular immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 following recovery from infection, vaccine dose 1 and vaccine dose 2 in 35 persons recovered from COVID-19. Persons with polymerase chain reaction or serologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited into a study of immunity against SARS-CoV-2. Self-reported symptoms categorized them as experiencing asymptomatic, mild, moderate or severe infection based on duration, intensity and need for hospitalization. Whole blood was obtained before vaccination and after first and second doses. Humoral immunity was assessed by ELISA and cellular immunity by ELISpot and intracellular flow cytometry. Responses were compared between groups recovered from either asymptomatic/mild (n = 14) or moderate/severe (n = 21) infection. Most subjects experienced robust increases in humoral and cellular immunity against SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein following 1 vaccination. Quantitative responses to second vaccination were marginal when measured 2.5 months afterwards and moderate or severe infection maintained stronger responses. Polyfunctional CD8+ T cell responses were largely restricted to subjects recovered from moderate or severe infection. One vaccine dose triggered stronger immune responses than in a comparable group never infected with SARS-CoV-2, while the second dose produced only minor lasting increases in humoral or cellular responses. Infection history should be considered in planning COVID-19 vaccine administration.