Back

Evaluating 6- and 18-hour stimulation durations for natural killer cell degranulation (CD107a assay) to optimize workflow efficiency in a clinical immunology laboratory

Feehan, L.; Koutoufaris, L.; Dorsey, J.; Paessler, M.; Pandey, P.

2026-03-04 immunology
10.64898/2026.03.02.708872 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundNatural killer (NK) cell degranulation is a key immune defense mechanism where exposure to tumor or virus-infected cells triggers the fusion of cytoplasmic granules containing apoptotic proteins, perforin, and granzyme with the cell membrane. This process transiently expresses CD107a on the NK cell surface, and measuring CD107a is a standard method to assess NK cell activity. MethodsWe compared two stimulation protocols differing only in duration (6-hour vs. 18-hour) using K562 target cells to induce NK cell degranulation. Isolated PBMCs without stimulation served as controls to assess spontaneous degranulation. Anti-CD107a-PE antibody was present throughout stimulation in both test and control samples. After stimulation, cells were stained with anti-CD45, anti-CD3, and anti-CD56 and analyzed by flow cytometry. ResultsFor 6 of 7 healthy controls, results from both methods fell within 2 standard deviations. Notably, longer (18-hour) stimulation resulted in lower CD107a expression than the 6-hour assay. Interlaboratory comparisons of two samples showed no significant difference (p>0.05). In a suspected hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) case, two labs reported similarly reduced CD107a expression (9% and 7%). Inter-day variability was observed in a donor across both time points. The 6-hour assay showed higher sensitivity and specificity than the 18-hour assay. A resting period before ex vivo PBMC assays was found necessary. ConclusionStimulation periods beyond 6 hours are unsuitable for clinical NK degranulation assays. Screening for HLH should include multiple stimulants to improve assay reliability.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Immunological Methods
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
26.8%
2
Cytometry Part A
30 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.0%
3
Frontiers in Immunology
586 papers in training set
Top 1%
6.5%
4
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.5%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 33%
4.5%
6
Transfusion
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.1%
50% of probability mass above
7
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
120 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.7%
8
Cytotherapy
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.7%
9
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 52%
2.0%
10
Immunology
29 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.8%
11
European Journal of Immunology
57 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
12
Journal of Clinical Virology
62 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.4%
13
Blood Advances
54 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.4%
14
Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.4%
15
Vaccines
196 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
16
ImmunoHorizons
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
17
STAR Protocols
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.1%
18
The Journal of Immunology
146 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
19
Clinical Chemistry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.0%
20
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
21
Journal of Medical Virology
137 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
22
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.0%
23
Immunology & Cell Biology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
24
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
25
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
378 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
26
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
25 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
27
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
28
Journal of Virological Methods
36 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
29
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 28%
0.5%
30
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.5%