BACKGROUND: The continuous improvement and evolution of immune cell phenotyping requires periodic upgrading of laboratory methods and technology. Flow cytometry laboratories that are participating in research protocols sponsored by the NIAID are required to perform "switch" studies to validate performance before methods for T-cell subset analysis can be changed. METHODS: Switch studies were conducted among the four flow cytometry laboratories of the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS), comparing a 2-color, lyse-wash method and a newer, 3-color, lyse no-wash method. Two of the laboratories twice failed to satisfy the criteria for acceptable differences from the previous method. Rather than repeating more switch studies, these laboratories were allowed to adopt the 3-color, lyse no-wash method. To evaluate the impact of the switch to the new method at these two sites, their results with the new method were evaluated within the context of all laboratories participating in the NIH-NIAID-Division of AIDS Immunology Quality Assurance (IQA) proficiency-testing program. RESULTS: Laboratory performance at these two sites substantially improved relative to the IQA standard test results. Variation across the four MACS sites and across replicate samples was also reduced. CONCLUSIONS: Although switch studies are the conventional method for assessing comparability of laboratory methods, two alternatives to the requirement of repeating failed switch studies should be considered: (1) test the new method and assess performance on the proficiency testing reference panel, and (2) prior to adoption of the new methods, use both the old and the new method on the reference panel samples and demonstrate that performance with the new method is better according to standard statistical procedures. These alternatives may help some laboratories' transition to a new and superior methodology more quickly than if they are required to attempt multiple, serial switch studies. Copyright 2007 Clinical Cytometry Society.
BACKGROUND: The continuous improvement and evolution of immune cell phenotyping requires periodic upgrading of laboratory methods and technology. Flow cytometry laboratories that are participating in research protocols sponsored by the NIAID are required to perform "switch" studies to validate performance before methods for T-cell subset analysis can be changed. METHODS: Switch studies were conducted among the four flow cytometry laboratories of the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS), comparing a 2-color, lyse-wash method and a newer, 3-color, lyse no-wash method. Two of the laboratories twice failed to satisfy the criteria for acceptable differences from the previous method. Rather than repeating more switch studies, these laboratories were allowed to adopt the 3-color, lyse no-wash method. To evaluate the impact of the switch to the new method at these two sites, their results with the new method were evaluated within the context of all laboratories participating in the NIH-NIAID-Division of AIDS Immunology Quality Assurance (IQA) proficiency-testing program. RESULTS: Laboratory performance at these two sites substantially improved relative to the IQA standard test results. Variation across the four MACS sites and across replicate samples was also reduced. CONCLUSIONS: Although switch studies are the conventional method for assessing comparability of laboratory methods, two alternatives to the requirement of repeating failed switch studies should be considered: (1) test the new method and assess performance on the proficiency testing reference panel, and (2) prior to adoption of the new methods, use both the old and the new method on the reference panel samples and demonstrate that performance with the new method is better according to standard statistical procedures. These alternatives may help some laboratories' transition to a new and superior methodology more quickly than if they are required to attempt multiple, serial switch studies. Copyright 2007 Clinical Cytometry Society.
Authors: Carol T Schnizlein-Bick; Francis F Mandy; Maurice R G O'Gorman; Helene Paxton; Janet K A Nicholson; Lance E Hultin; Rebecca S Gelman; Cynthia L Wilkening; Daniella Livnat Journal: Cytometry Date: 2002-04-15
Authors: Wes Rountree; Nathan Vandergrift; John Bainbridge; Ana M Sanchez; Thomas N Denny Journal: J Immunol Methods Date: 2014-01-20 Impact factor: 2.303
Authors: Keri N Althoff; Lisa P Jacobson; Ross D Cranston; Roger Detels; John P Phair; Xiuhong Li; Joseph B Margolick Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2013-10-14 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Jordan E Lake; Quynh T Vo; Lisa P Jacobson; Ned Sacktor; Eric N Miller; Wendy S Post; James T Becker; Frank J Palella; Ann Ragin; Eileen Martin; Cynthia A Munro; Todd T Brown Journal: Antivir Ther Date: 2015-03-26
Authors: Nikolas Itaru Wada; Lisa P Jacobson; Joseph B Margolick; Elizabeth Crabb Breen; Bernard Macatangay; Sudhir Penugonda; Otoniel Martínez-Maza; Jay H Bream Journal: AIDS Date: 2015-02-20 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Weiying Zhang; Tricia L Nilles; Jacquett R Johnson; Joseph B Margolick Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2015-08-22 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Jordan E Lake; Mikhail Popov; Wendy S Post; Frank J Palella; Ned Sacktor; Eric N Miller; Todd T Brown; James T Becker Journal: J Neurovirol Date: 2016-12-15 Impact factor: 2.643
Authors: Jennifer A Schrack; Lisa P Jacobson; Keri N Althoff; Kristine M Erlandson; Beth D Jamieson; Susan L Koletar; John Phair; Todd T Brown; Joseph B Margolick Journal: AIDS Date: 2016-11-13 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Peter Torre; Howard J Hoffman; Gayle Springer; Christopher Cox; Mary A Young; Joseph B Margolick; Michael Plankey Journal: J Commun Disord Date: 2016-07-25 Impact factor: 2.288
Authors: Alison G Abraham; Annie Darilay; Heather McKay; Joseph B Margolick; Michelle M Estrella; Frank J Palella; Robert Bolan; Charles R Rinaldo; Lisa P Jacobson Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2015-03-11 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Nikolas I Wada; Jay H Bream; Otoniel Martínez-Maza; Bernard Macatangay; Shannon R Galvin; Joseph B Margolick; Lisa P Jacobson Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2016-06-25 Impact factor: 9.079