Cargando…

Response definition criteria for ELISPOT assays revisited

No consensus has been reached on how to determine if an immune response has been detected based on raw data from an ELISPOT assay. The goal of this paper is to enable investigators to understand and readily implement currently available methods for response determination. We describe empirical and s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Moodie, Z., Price, L., Gouttefangeas, C., Mander, A., Janetzki, S., Löwer, M., Welters, M. J. P., Ottensmeier, C., van der Burg, S. H., Britten, Cedrik M.
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer-Verlag 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2909425/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20549207
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00262-010-0875-4
_version_ 1782184306195562496
author Moodie, Z.
Price, L.
Gouttefangeas, C.
Mander, A.
Janetzki, S.
Löwer, M.
Welters, M. J. P.
Ottensmeier, C.
van der Burg, S. H.
Britten, Cedrik M.
author_facet Moodie, Z.
Price, L.
Gouttefangeas, C.
Mander, A.
Janetzki, S.
Löwer, M.
Welters, M. J. P.
Ottensmeier, C.
van der Burg, S. H.
Britten, Cedrik M.
author_sort Moodie, Z.
collection PubMed
description No consensus has been reached on how to determine if an immune response has been detected based on raw data from an ELISPOT assay. The goal of this paper is to enable investigators to understand and readily implement currently available methods for response determination. We describe empirical and statistical approaches, identifying the strengths and limitations of each approach to allow readers to rationally select and apply a scientifically sound method appropriate to their specific laboratory setting. Five representative approaches were applied to data sets from the CIMT Immunoguiding Program and the response detection and false positive rates were compared. Simulation studies were also performed to compare empirical and statistical approaches. Based on these, we recommend the use of a non-parametric statistical test. Further, we recommend that six medium control wells or four wells each for both medium control and experimental conditions be performed to increase the sensitivity in detecting a response, that replicates with large variation in spot counts be filtered out, and that positive responses arising from experimental spot counts below the estimated limit of detection be interpreted with caution. Moreover, a web-based user interface was developed to allow easy access to the recommended statistical methods. This interface allows the user to upload data from an ELISPOT assay and obtain an output file of the binary responses. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00262-010-0875-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Text
id pubmed-2909425
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher Springer-Verlag
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-29094252010-08-09 Response definition criteria for ELISPOT assays revisited Moodie, Z. Price, L. Gouttefangeas, C. Mander, A. Janetzki, S. Löwer, M. Welters, M. J. P. Ottensmeier, C. van der Burg, S. H. Britten, Cedrik M. Cancer Immunol Immunother Original Article No consensus has been reached on how to determine if an immune response has been detected based on raw data from an ELISPOT assay. The goal of this paper is to enable investigators to understand and readily implement currently available methods for response determination. We describe empirical and statistical approaches, identifying the strengths and limitations of each approach to allow readers to rationally select and apply a scientifically sound method appropriate to their specific laboratory setting. Five representative approaches were applied to data sets from the CIMT Immunoguiding Program and the response detection and false positive rates were compared. Simulation studies were also performed to compare empirical and statistical approaches. Based on these, we recommend the use of a non-parametric statistical test. Further, we recommend that six medium control wells or four wells each for both medium control and experimental conditions be performed to increase the sensitivity in detecting a response, that replicates with large variation in spot counts be filtered out, and that positive responses arising from experimental spot counts below the estimated limit of detection be interpreted with caution. Moreover, a web-based user interface was developed to allow easy access to the recommended statistical methods. This interface allows the user to upload data from an ELISPOT assay and obtain an output file of the binary responses. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00262-010-0875-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer-Verlag 2010-06-15 2010 /pmc/articles/PMC2909425/ /pubmed/20549207 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00262-010-0875-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2010 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Moodie, Z.
Price, L.
Gouttefangeas, C.
Mander, A.
Janetzki, S.
Löwer, M.
Welters, M. J. P.
Ottensmeier, C.
van der Burg, S. H.
Britten, Cedrik M.
Response definition criteria for ELISPOT assays revisited
title Response definition criteria for ELISPOT assays revisited
title_full Response definition criteria for ELISPOT assays revisited
title_fullStr Response definition criteria for ELISPOT assays revisited
title_full_unstemmed Response definition criteria for ELISPOT assays revisited
title_short Response definition criteria for ELISPOT assays revisited
title_sort response definition criteria for elispot assays revisited
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2909425/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20549207
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00262-010-0875-4
work_keys_str_mv AT moodiez responsedefinitioncriteriaforelispotassaysrevisited
AT pricel responsedefinitioncriteriaforelispotassaysrevisited
AT gouttefangeasc responsedefinitioncriteriaforelispotassaysrevisited
AT mandera responsedefinitioncriteriaforelispotassaysrevisited
AT janetzkis responsedefinitioncriteriaforelispotassaysrevisited
AT lowerm responsedefinitioncriteriaforelispotassaysrevisited
AT weltersmjp responsedefinitioncriteriaforelispotassaysrevisited
AT ottensmeierc responsedefinitioncriteriaforelispotassaysrevisited
AT vanderburgsh responsedefinitioncriteriaforelispotassaysrevisited
AT brittencedrikm responsedefinitioncriteriaforelispotassaysrevisited