Pfizer Vaccines, Pearl River, NY 10965, USA.
Cytometry A. 2013 Aug;83(8):728-38. doi: 10.1002/cyto.a.22319. Epub 2013 Jun 20.
Previous results from two proficiency panels of intracellular cytokine staining (ICS) from the Cancer Immunotherapy Consortium and panels from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease and the Association for Cancer Immunotherapy highlight the variability across laboratories in reported % CD8+ or % CD4+ cytokine-positive cells. One of the main causes of interassay variability in flow cytometry-based assays is due to differences in gating strategies between laboratories, which may prohibit the generation of robust results within single centers and across institutions. To study how gating strategies affect the variation in reported results, a gating panel was organized where all participants analyzed the same set of Flow Cytometry Standard (FCS) files from a four-color ICS assay using their own gating protocol (Phase I) and a gating protocol drafted by consensus from the organizers of the panel (Phase II). Focusing on analysis removed donor, assay, and instrument variation, enabling us to quantify the variability caused by gating alone. One hundred ten participating laboratories applied 110 different gating approaches. This led to high variability in the reported percentage of cytokine-positive cells and consequently in response detection in Phase I. However, variability was dramatically reduced when all laboratories used the same gating strategy (Phase II). Proximity of the cytokine gate to the negative population most impacted true-positive and false-positive response detection. Recommendations are provided for the (1) placement of the cytokine-positive gate, (2) identification of CD4+ CD8+ double-positive T cells, (3) placement of lymphocyte gate, (4) inclusion of dim cells, (5) gate uniformity, and 6) proper adjustment of the biexponential scaling.
先前的两项细胞内细胞因子染色(ICS)能力验证计划结果,分别来自癌症免疫治疗联盟(Cancer Immunotherapy Consortium)的两个小组,以及国家过敏和传染病研究所(National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease)和癌症免疫治疗协会(Association for Cancer Immunotherapy)的两个小组,都强调了在报告的 CD8+或 CD4+细胞因子阳性细胞百分比方面,各实验室之间存在差异。流式细胞术检测中,实验室间差异的主要原因之一是门控策略不同,这可能会阻止在单一中心和机构之间产生可靠的结果。为了研究门控策略如何影响报告结果的差异,组织了一个门控面板,所有参与者都使用自己的门控方案(第一阶段)和由面板组织者起草的共识门控方案(第二阶段),分析来自四色 ICS 检测的相同流式细胞术标准(FCS)文件集。专注于分析去除了供体、检测和仪器的变化,使我们能够量化仅由门控引起的变化。有 110 个实验室参与,应用了 110 种不同的门控方法。这导致报告的细胞因子阳性细胞百分比和响应检测在第一阶段具有很高的可变性。然而,当所有实验室都使用相同的门控策略时,可变性显著降低(第二阶段)。细胞因子门与阴性群体的接近程度对真正的阳性和假阳性反应检测影响最大。为(1)细胞因子阳性门的位置、(2)CD4+CD8+双阳性 T 细胞的识别、(3)淋巴细胞门的位置、(4)弱荧光细胞的包含、(5)门的均匀性和(6)双指数缩放的适当调整,提供了建议。