Figure 5
Figure 5. Flow cytometric analysis of established monocyte surface markers. (A) After doublet and dead cell exclusion with 7-aminoactinomycin D, gating on the 3 monocyte subsets for both specific and background staining was done based on CD14 and CD16 expression as shown in Figure 1A. Specific stainings are represented by blue tinted histograms, whereas FMO isotype controls are represented by histograms with red dotted lines. Numbers in each histogram represent MFI of specific staining minus isotype control. Representative data from 4 to 7 independent donors. (B) The mean ± SD of the MFI of the specific staining minus the MFI of its FMO isotype control for the tested surface antigens are shown. The number of persons the results for each surface marker is based on is denoted by (n). Statistical calculations of significance were performed using ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey for significant differences between any 2 monocyte subsets: *P < .05, **P < .01, ***P < .001.

Flow cytometric analysis of established monocyte surface markers. (A) After doublet and dead cell exclusion with 7-aminoactinomycin D, gating on the 3 monocyte subsets for both specific and background staining was done based on CD14 and CD16 expression as shown in Figure 1A. Specific stainings are represented by blue tinted histograms, whereas FMO isotype controls are represented by histograms with red dotted lines. Numbers in each histogram represent MFI of specific staining minus isotype control. Representative data from 4 to 7 independent donors. (B) The mean ± SD of the MFI of the specific staining minus the MFI of its FMO isotype control for the tested surface antigens are shown. The number of persons the results for each surface marker is based on is denoted by (n). Statistical calculations of significance were performed using ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey for significant differences between any 2 monocyte subsets: *P < .05, **P < .01, ***P < .001.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal