Analysis of subcellular sized particles. Capillary electrophoresis with post-column laser-induced fluorescence detection versus flow cytometry

Flow cytometry (FCM) and more recently capillary electrophoresis with post-column laser-induced fluorescence detection (CE-LIF) have both been used for subcellular particle analysis but their analytical performance has not been compared. In this work, we compare a commercial FCM with an in-house built CE-LIF instrument using fluorescently labeled microspheres and isolated mitochondria. As evidenced by the relative standard deviation (RSD) of the individual fluorescence intensities, FCM is two-fold better than CE-LIF for microspheres with ≥1.5 × 10⁶ molecules of equivalent soluble fluorescein (MESF). However, FCM has a comparatively low signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) and high RSD for microspheres with <1.5 × 10⁶ MESF. CE-LIF, on the other hand, produces S/N ratios that are >25 times higher than FCM for all the microspheres tested and a lower RSD for microspheres with <1.5 × 10⁶ MESF. When 10-N-nonyl acridine orange (NAO)-labeled mitochondria are analyzed, the S/N ratios of both techniques are similar. This appears to result from photobleaching of NAO-labeled mitochondria as they are detected by the LIF detector of the CE-LIF instrument. Both techniques have a niche in subcellular analysis; FCM has the advantage of collecting data for thousands of particles quickly, whereas CE-LIF consumes less than a nanoliter of sample and provides the electrophoretic mobility for individual particles.