2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbagen.2014.07.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Electrophysiological evaluation of Cystic Fibrosis Conductance Transmembrane Regulator (CFTR) expression in human monocytes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
14
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
1
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The results concerning the ivacaftor‐dependent rescue of CFTR activity indicate that, as previously demonstrated, human blood monocytes isolated from CF patients express a “non functional” CFTR, that can be restored after drug‐treatment. The spectrofluorimetric analysis of CFTR‐dependent chloride efflux in MNC used in this study may represent a non invasive, easy to perform and sensitive method to evaluate therapy response in CF patients.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 71%
“…The results concerning the ivacaftor‐dependent rescue of CFTR activity indicate that, as previously demonstrated, human blood monocytes isolated from CF patients express a “non functional” CFTR, that can be restored after drug‐treatment. The spectrofluorimetric analysis of CFTR‐dependent chloride efflux in MNC used in this study may represent a non invasive, easy to perform and sensitive method to evaluate therapy response in CF patients.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 71%
“…At low levels, the CFTR protein is detectable in both murine [20] and human macrophages [21,22]. Furthermore, CFTR-like Cl − conductance has been recorded in human monocytes and human and murine macrophages [20,21,[23][24][25], suggesting that in these cells, CFTR operates as a cAMP-dependent chloride channel.…”
Section: Cftr Expression In Macrophagesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…16 This method allows for kinetic resolution comparable to electrophysiological measurements, allowing for detection of rapid changes in membrane potential; however, FLIPR is a faster, less labor-intensive, and higher-throughput approach. 17,18 In addition, the FLIPR system eliminates wash steps, which translates to healthier (and a higher number of) cells due to less manipulation, as well as shorter read times due to the simple mix-and-read protocol. Several other membrane potential-sensitive dyes exist (e.g., DiBAC), but they have slower response times (10× slower for DiBAC) and can be sensitive to temperature variations; therefore, FLIPR is more robust, allowing for high-quality screening results that yield high signal-to-noise ratios.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%