4.7 Article

Standardizing Flow Cytometry Immunophenotyping Analysis from the Human ImmunoPhenotyping Consortium

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 6, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep20686

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 EB008400]
  2. Human Immunology Project Consortium (HIPC) [U19 AI089986]
  3. Wellcome Trust Strategic Award [100140]
  4. intramural research program of NHLBI, NIH
  5. [5U19AI090019]
  6. Medical Research Council [1125070] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Standardization of immunophenotyping requires careful attention to reagents, sample handling, instrument setup, and data analysis, and is essential for successful cross-study and cross-center comparison of data. Experts developed five standardized, eight-color panels for identification of major immune cell subsets in peripheral blood. These were produced as pre-configured, lyophilized, reagents in 96-well plates. We present the results of a coordinated analysis of samples across nine laboratories using these panels with standardized operating procedures (SOPs). Manual gating was performed by each site and by a central site. Automated gating algorithms were developed and tested by the FlowCAP consortium. Centralized manual gating can reduce cross-center variability, and we sought to determine whether automated methods could streamline and standardize the analysis. Within-site variability was low in all experiments, but cross-site variability was lower when central analysis was performed in comparison with site-specific analysis. It was also lower for clearly defined cell subsets than those based on dim markers and for rare populations. Automated gating was able to match the performance of central manual analysis for all tested panels, exhibiting little to no bias and comparable variability. Standardized staining, data collection, and automated gating can increase power, reduce variability, and streamline analysis for immunophenotyping.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available