Limitations in the Use of Fluorescein Diacetate/Propidium Iodide (FDA/PI) and Cell Permeable Nucleic Acid Stains for Viability Measurements of Isolated Islets of Langerhans

Curr Trends Biotechnol Pharm. 2008 Mar;2(2):66-84.


BACKGROUND: A review of current literature shows that the combined use of the cell permeable esterase-substrate fluorescein diacetate (FDA) and the cell impermeant nucleic acid stain propidium iodide (PI) to be one of the most common fluorescence-based methods to assess the viability of isolated islets of Langerhans, and it is currently used for islet product release prior to transplantation in humans. However, results from this assay do not correlate with islet viability and function or islet transplantation success in animals or humans (Eckhard et al. 2004; Ricordi et al. 2001). This may be in part attributed to considerable differences as well as discrepancies in the use of these reagents on islets. We critically surveyed the literature and evaluated the impact of a number of variables associated with the use of FDA/PI to determine their reliability in assessing islet cell viability. In addition, we evaluated other fluorescent stains, such as SYTO(R)13, SYTO(R)24 and SYBR(R)14 as possible alternatives to FDA. RESULTS: We found that the stability of stains in storage and stock solutions, the number of islets stained, concentration of stains, staining incubation time, the buffer/media used, and the method of examining islets were significant in the final scoring of viability. For archival file photos, the exposure time and camera/software settings can also impact interpretation of viability. Although our results show that FDA does detect intracellular esterase activity and staining with PI does assess cell membrane integrity, the results obtained from using these stains did not correlate directly with expected islet function and viability per transplantation into diabetic athymic nude mice (Papas et al. 2007). In addition, the use of two nucleic acid stains, such as SYTO(R)13 and PI, for live/dead scoring exhibited staining anomalies which limit their accuracy in assessing islet viability. CONCLUSIONS: From a review of the literature and from our observations on the impact of reagent handling and various staining and imaging parameters used to visually evaluate islets, consistent interpretation of islet cell membrane integrity and viability is dependent upon a number of factors. We discuss the utility and limitations of these reagents in evaluating islet cell membrane integrity and viability.