Literature DB >> 11598947

Frequency difference gating: a multivariate method for identifying subsets that differ between samples.

M Roederer1, R R Hardy.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In multivariate distributions (for example, in 3- or more color flow cytometric datasets), it can become difficult or impossible to identify populations that differ between samples based only on a combination of univariate or bivariate displays. Indeed, it is possible that such differences can only be identified in "n"-dimensional space, where "n" is the number of parameters measured. Therefore, computer assisted identification of such differences is necessary. Such a method could be used to identify responses (i.e., by comparing cell samples before and after stimulation) in exquisite detail by allowing complete analysis of the collected data on only those events which have responded.
METHODS: Multivariate Probability Binning can be used to compare different datasets to identify the distance and statistical significance of a difference between the distributions. An intermediate step in the algorithm provides access to the actual locations within the n-dimensional comparison which are most different between the distributions. Gates based on collections of hyper-rectangular bins can then be applied to datasets, thereby selecting those events (or clusters of events) that are different between samples. We term this process Frequency Difference Gating.
RESULTS: Frequency Difference Gating was used in several test scenarios to evaluate its utility. First, we compared PBMC subsets identified by solely by immunofluorescence staining: based on this training data set, the algorithm automatically generated an accurate forward and side-scatter gate to identify lymphocytes. Second, we applied the algorithm to identify subtle differences between CD4 memory subsets based on 8-color immunophenotyping data. The resulting 3-dimensional gate could resolve cells subsets much more frequent in one subset compared to the other; no combination of two-dimensional gates could accomplish this resolution. Finally, we used the algorithm to compare B cell populations derived from mice of different ages or strains, and found that the algorithm could find very subtle differences between the populations.
CONCLUSION: Frequency Difference Gating is a powerful tool that automates the process of identifying events comprising underlying differences between samples. It is not a clustering tool; it is not meant to identify subsets in multidimensional space. Importantly, this method may reveal subtle changes in small populations of cells, changes that only occur simultaneously in multiple dimensions in such a way that identification by univariate or bivariate analyses is impossible. Finally, the method may significantly aid in the analysis of high-order multivariate data (i.e., 6-12 color flow cytometric analyses), where identification of differences between datasets becomes so time-consuming as to be impractical. Published 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11598947     DOI: 10.1002/1097-0320(20010901)45:1<56::aid-cyto1144>3.0.co;2-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cytometry        ISSN: 0196-4763


  25 in total

Review 1.  Diagnostic pathology and laboratory medicine in the age of "omics": a paper from the 2006 William Beaumont Hospital Symposium on Molecular Pathology.

Authors:  William G Finn
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2007-07-25       Impact factor: 5.568

Review 2.  Cytometry: today's technology and tomorrow's horizons.

Authors:  Pratip K Chattopadhyay; Mario Roederer
Journal:  Methods       Date:  2012-02-25       Impact factor: 3.608

3.  Automated analysis of multidimensional flow cytometry data improves diagnostic accuracy between mantle cell lymphoma and small lymphocytic lymphoma.

Authors:  Habil Zare; Ali Bashashati; Robert Kridel; Nima Aghaeepour; Gholamreza Haffari; Joseph M Connors; Randy D Gascoyne; Arvind Gupta; Ryan R Brinkman; Andrew P Weng
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 2.493

4.  Lack of recall response to Tax in ATL and HAM/TSP patients but not in asymptomatic carriers of human T-cell leukemia virus type 1.

Authors:  Sharrón L Manuel; Mohit Sehgal; John Connolly; George Makedonas; Zafar K Khan; Jay Gardner; Michael R Betts; Pooja Jain
Journal:  J Clin Immunol       Date:  2013-07-26       Impact factor: 8.317

Review 5.  Data analysis in flow cytometry: the future just started.

Authors:  Enrico Lugli; Mario Roederer; Andrea Cossarizza
Journal:  Cytometry A       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 4.355

6.  β-cell-specific CD8 T cell phenotype in type 1 diabetes reflects chronic autoantigen exposure.

Authors:  Ania Skowera; Kristin Ladell; David A Price; Mark Peakman; James E McLaren; Garry Dolton; Katherine K Matthews; Emma Gostick; Deborah Kronenberg-Versteeg; Martin Eichmann; Robin R Knight; Susanne Heck; Jake Powrie; Polly J Bingley; Colin M Dayan; John J Miles; Andrew K Sewell
Journal:  Diabetes       Date:  2014-09-23       Impact factor: 9.461

7.  An altered maturation and adhesion phenotype of dendritic cells in diseased individuals compared to asymptomatic carriers of human T cell leukemia virus type 1.

Authors:  Sharrón L Manuel; Mohit Sehgal; Zafar K Khan; James J Goedert; Michael R Betts; Pooja Jain
Journal:  AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses       Date:  2013-07-19       Impact factor: 2.205

8.  A survey of flow cytometry data analysis methods.

Authors:  Ali Bashashati; Ryan R Brinkman
Journal:  Adv Bioinformatics       Date:  2009-12-06

9.  The curvHDR method for gating flow cytometry samples.

Authors:  Ulrike Naumann; George Luta; Matthew P Wand
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2010-01-22       Impact factor: 3.169

10.  Merging mixture components for cell population identification in flow cytometry.

Authors:  Greg Finak; Ali Bashashati; Ryan Brinkman; Raphaël Gottardo
Journal:  Adv Bioinformatics       Date:  2009-11-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.