BACKGROUND: Previous studies have reported that the adoption of a single-platform flow cytometry cell counting method resulted in lower interlaboratory variation in absolute T cell counts as compared to predicate dual-platform flow cytometry methods which incorporate independent automated lymphocyte counts (Schnizlein-Bick et al., Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2000;7:336-343; Reimann et al., Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2000;7:344-351). In the present study, we asked whether use of a single-platform method could reduce variation in absolute cell counts across the laboratories in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) (n = 4), as suggested by the studies cited. METHODS: Identical study samples were shipped overnight to the MACS laboratories either by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Division of AIDS Immunology Quality Assessment (NIAID- IQA) proficiency-testing program (n = 14), or by the Los Angeles site of the MACS (n = 10). For each sample, two tubes of blood were received; one was used for an automated complete blood count and differential, and the other for flow cytometry. The latter was performed using both our current dual-platform method (three-color CD45 gating and automated hematology) and the single-platform method (with TruCOUNT beads to generate the absolute counts). RESULTS: The median percent coefficients of variation (%CVs) for the dual-platform and single-platform methods were 6.6 and 9.9, respectively, for CD4 T cell counts, and 5.9 and 8.5, respectively, for CD8 T cell counts (n = 24). These differences were not statistically significant. The differences in absolute T-cell counts between the MACS sites and the median of all laboratories participating in the NIAID-IQA were smaller for the dual-platform than for single-platform absolute count method. CONCLUSION: In contrast to previous reports, we did not observe lower interlaboratory variation across the MACS sites for single-platform absolute lymphocyte subset counting relative to dual-platform methods. This result may be at least partly explained by the lower interlaboratory variation with the optimized dual-platform method in this study relative to the previous reports. 2009 Clinical Cytometry Society.
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have reported that the adoption of a single-platform flow cytometry cell counting method resulted in lower interlaboratory variation in absolute T cell counts as compared to predicate dual-platform flow cytometry methods which incorporate independent automated lymphocyte counts (Schnizlein-Bick et al., Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2000;7:336-343; Reimann et al., Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2000;7:344-351). In the present study, we asked whether use of a single-platform method could reduce variation in absolute cell counts across the laboratories in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) (n = 4), as suggested by the studies cited. METHODS: Identical study samples were shipped overnight to the MACS laboratories either by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Division of AIDS Immunology Quality Assessment (NIAID- IQA) proficiency-testing program (n = 14), or by the Los Angeles site of the MACS (n = 10). For each sample, two tubes of blood were received; one was used for an automated complete blood count and differential, and the other for flow cytometry. The latter was performed using both our current dual-platform method (three-color CD45 gating and automated hematology) and the single-platform method (with TruCOUNT beads to generate the absolute counts). RESULTS: The median percent coefficients of variation (%CVs) for the dual-platform and single-platform methods were 6.6 and 9.9, respectively, for CD4 T cell counts, and 5.9 and 8.5, respectively, for CD8 T cell counts (n = 24). These differences were not statistically significant. The differences in absolute T-cell counts between the MACS sites and the median of all laboratories participating in the NIAID-IQA were smaller for the dual-platform than for single-platform absolute count method. CONCLUSION: In contrast to previous reports, we did not observe lower interlaboratory variation across the MACS sites for single-platform absolute lymphocyte subset counting relative to dual-platform methods. This result may be at least partly explained by the lower interlaboratory variation with the optimized dual-platform method in this study relative to the previous reports. 2009 Clinical Cytometry Society.
Authors: Kathryn Anastos; Yolanda Barrón; Paolo Miotti; Barbara Weiser; Mary Young; Nancy Hessol; Ruth M Greenblatt; Mardge Cohen; Michael Augenbraun; Alexandra Levine; Alvaro Muñoz Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2002-09-23
Authors: Matthias Egger; Margaret May; Geneviève Chêne; Andrew N Phillips; Bruno Ledergerber; François Dabis; Dominique Costagliola; Antonella D'Arminio Monforte; Frank de Wolf; Peter Reiss; Jens D Lundgren; Amy C Justice; Schlomo Staszewski; Catherine Leport; Robert S Hogg; Caroline A Sabin; M John Gill; Bernd Salzberger; Jonathan A C Sterne Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-07-13 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Joseph B Margolick; Jay H Bream; Tricia L Nilles; Huifen Li; Susan J Langan; Shane Deng; Ruibin Wang; Nikolas Wada; Sean X Leng Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2018-06-20 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Nicholas J Moss; Amalia Magaret; Kerry J Laing; Angela Shaulov Kask; Minna Wang; Karen E Mark; Joshua T Schiffer; Anna Wald; David M Koelle Journal: J Virol Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 5.103
Authors: Najib Aziz; Joseph B Margolick; Roger Detels; Charles R Rinaldo; John Phair; Beth D Jamieson; Anthony W Butch Journal: Clin Vaccine Immunol Date: 2013-02-13
Authors: J Bainbridge; C L Wilkening; W Rountree; R Louzao; J Wong; N Perza; A Garcia; T N Denny Journal: J Immunol Methods Date: 2014-06-07 Impact factor: 2.303
Authors: Chao Ma; Ann F Cheung; Thinle Chodon; Richard C Koya; Zhongqi Wu; Charles Ng; Earl Avramis; Alistair J Cochran; Owen N Witte; David Baltimore; Bartosz Chmielowski; James S Economou; Begonya Comin-Anduix; Antoni Ribas; James R Heath Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2013-03-21 Impact factor: 39.397
Authors: Michael Eschbaumer; Carolina Stenfeldt; Steven I Rekant; Juan M Pacheco; Ethan J Hartwig; George R Smoliga; Mary A Kenney; William T Golde; Luis L Rodriguez; Jonathan Arzt Journal: BMC Vet Res Date: 2016-09-15 Impact factor: 2.741
Authors: Noemí Muñoz-García; María Jara-Acevedo; Carolina Caldas; Paloma Bárcena; Antonio López; Noemí Puig; Miguel Alcoceba; Paula Fernández; Neus Villamor; Juan A Flores-Montero; Karoll Gómez; María Angelina Lemes; Jose Carlos Hernández; Iván Álvarez-Twose; Jose Luis Guerra; Marcos González; Alberto Orfao; Julia Almeida Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-11-25 Impact factor: 6.639