OBJECTIVE

To show that the results of evaluation of monocyte pro-inflammatory activity (PA) in patients with juvenile depression and healthy donors, obtained using a new method developed by us for counting the relative number of large monocytes on a multifunctional counter and cell analyzer, are similar to the results obtained using a standard assessment of the level of proinflammatory CD14⁺/CD16⁺ — monocytes on a flow cytofluorimeter.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The PA of monocytes, isolated from the peripheral venous blood of 18 patients with juvenile depression and 12 mentally and somatically healthy age and gender-matched persons was evaluated in two ways: using the generally accepted method of determining the relative number of monocytes with the proinflammatory phenotype CD14⁺/CD16⁺ on a flow cytofluorometer FC-500 and by counting the relative number of large monocytes on a multifunctional counter and cell analyzer Multisizer MS-4. PA of monocytes in patients was studied by using both methods in different variants: in the general group and in the subgroups of patients with low and high levels of active monocytes.

RESULTS

The levels of monocyte PA determined in patients using the two methods did not statistically differ from each other in all variants of the analysis (p=0.6). The equivalence of the obtained results was confirmed by the Chi-square test (r=0.77, p=0.05), as well as by the detection of a statistically significant positive correlation between the number of monocytes with the pro-inflammatory CD14⁺/CD16⁺ phenotype, on the one hand, and the relative number of large monocytes, on the other hand (Spearman r=0.75; p<0.05). At the same time, a comparative analysis of the level of monocyte PA in the general groups of patients and healthy controls revealed significantly higher values of this indicator in patients compared with healthy persons when evaluated by both methods (p<0.05). Definition of monocytes PA using the new method developed by us for counting the relative number of large monocytes on the analyzer and cell counter is more economical and easier to perform, since it does not require the use of expensive devices and reagents, as well as complex device settings and a high level of operator qualification, as in the common method, and is carried out only by two parameters: by counting the number of large monocytes with a diameter of 12.5 to 15 microns and the total number of monocytes with a diameter of 9 to 15 microns.

CONCLUSION

The proposed method for assessing monocyte PA by counting the relative number of large monocytes on the cell counter and analyzer can be used to analyze the activity of monocytes for research purposes.