4.6 Review

Multi-center harmonization of flow cytometers in the context of the European PRECISESADS project

期刊

AUTOIMMUNITY REVIEWS
卷 15, 期 11, 页码 1038-1045

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.autrev.2016.07.034

关键词

Multi-parametric flow cytometry; Multi-center harmonization; Standard operating procedure; PRECISESADS

资金

  1. Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking [115565]
  2. European Union
  3. EFPIA companies
  4. Agence Nationale de la Recherche under the Investissement d'Avenir program [ANR-11-LABX-0016-001]
  5. Region Bretagne
  6. Instituto de Salud Carlos III - European FEDER funds [PI10/0552.PI13/0522]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The innovative medicine initiative project called PRECISESADS will study 2.500 individuals affected by systemic autoimmune diseases (SADs) and controls. Among extensive OMICS approaches, multi parameter flow cytometry analyses will be performed in eleven different centers. Therefore, the integration of all data in common bioinformatical and biostatistical investigations requires a fine mirroring of all instruments. We describe here the procedure elaborated to achieve this prerequisite. One flow cytometer chosen as reference instrument fixed the mean fluorescence intensities (MFIs) of 8 different fluorochromeconjugated antibodies (Abs) using VersaComp Ab capture beads. The ten other centers adjusted their own PMT voltages to reach the same MFIs. Subsequently, all centers acquired Rainbow 8-peak beads data on a daily basis to follow the stability of their instrument overtime. One blood sample has been dispatched and concomitantly stained in all centers. Comparison of leukocytes frequencies and cell surface marker MFIs demonstrated the close sensitivity of all flow cytometers, allowing a multicenter analysis. The effective multi-center harmonization enables the constitution of a workable wide flow cytometry database for the identification of specific molecular signatures in individuals with SADs. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据