| Literature DB >> 21034498 |
Janet C Siebert1, Lian Wang, Daniel P Haley, Ann Romer, Bo Zheng, Wes Munsil, Kenton W Gregory, Edwin B Walker.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The complex data sets generated by higher-order polychromatic flow cytometry experiments are a challenge to analyze. Here we describe Exhaustive Expansion, a data analysis approach for deriving hundreds to thousands of cell phenotypes from raw data, and for interrogating these phenotypes to identify populations of biological interest given the experimental context.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 21034498 PMCID: PMC2988720 DOI: 10.1186/1479-5876-8-106
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Transl Med ISSN: 1479-5876 Impact factor: 5.531
Five monoclonal antibody panels for stem cell study.
| Panel | Main | CD31 | CD144 | CD146 | VEGFR2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antibody | CD29 | CD29 | CD29 | (CD146) | CD29 |
| ckit | (CD31) | (CD144) | ckit | ckit | |
| CD56 | CD56 | CD56 | CD56 | CD56 | |
| CXCR4 | CXCR4 | CXCR4 | CXCR4 | CXCR4 | |
| CD105 | CD105 | CD105 | CD105 | CD105 | |
| CD90 | CD90 | CD90 | CD90 | (VEGFR2) | |
| Sca-1 | Sca-1 | Sca-1 | Sca-1 | Sca-1 | |
| CD44 | CD44 | CD44 | CD44 | CD44 | |
Each of the 5 panels consists of 8 mAbs. The differences from the main panel are indicated both in the name of the panel and by the antibody listed in parentheses.
Combinations of positive/negative phenotypes in a 5-marker panel.
| Number of markers | Number of +/- gates given M markers | Combinations | Number of combinations of M markers in a 5 marker panel (C) | Number of gates times number |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 20 = 1 | No markers specified | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 21 = 2 | A, B, C, D, E | 5 | 10 |
| 2 | 22 = 4 | AB, AC, AD, AE, BC, BD, BE, CD, CE, DE | 10 | 40 |
| 3 | 23 = 8 | ABC, ABD, ABE, ACD, ACE, ADE, BCD, BCE, BDE, CDE | 10 | 80 |
| 4 | 24 = 16 | ABCD, ABCE, ABDE, ACDE, BCDE | 5 | 80 |
| 5 | 25 = 32 | ABCDE | 1 | 32 |
| TOTAL = 243 | ||||
This table illustrates the total number of positive/negative gates in a 5-marker panel, with hypothetical markers A, B, C, D and E. There are five possible 1-marker combinations, ten 2-marker combinations, ten 3-marker combinations, five 4-marker combinations, and one 5-marker combination. For each combination, there are 2M positive/negative gates where M is the number of markers in the combinations. Thus, there are 243 possible phenotypes in a 5 marker experiment. This generalizes to 3M.
Representative input and output for the "Expander" program.
| Representative Input |
|---|
The Expander program derives aggregate sets or supersets from input data, and outputs both the relative set name and the percentage of cells in both the newly derived sets and the original sets. The percentage of cells in the derived sets is calculated by adding together the percentages in the subsets, as illustrated in Figure 1. The rows below illustrate the format of both input and output, but not direct correspondence between input and output. Output is loaded into a relational database for further analysis.
Figure 1Representative gating strategy and additional phenotype set calculations. This figure illustrates a gating strategy in which CCR7+ cells are further categorized by positive or negative expression of CD45RA and CD57. Cells in each resulting quadrant (dot plot B) are then categorized based on CD27 and CD28 staining frequencies (dot plots 1-4). The callout table illustrates how the two phenotypes CCR7+CD45RA-CD57-CD27+CD28+ (+--++) and CCR7+CD45RA-CD57-CD27+CD28- (+--+-), marked by dotted lines, are aggregated to form a superset population, CCR7+CD45RA-CD57-CD27+ (+--+.), in which CD28 expression is unspecified.
Figure 2Longitudinal single parameter frequency profiles for 7 patients across 3 time points. Frequencies of CD45RA+, CD27+, and CD28+ gp100-specific CD8+ T cells are shown for each patient (EA02, EA07...) for each of 3 time points (PIVR, LTM, P2B). The Average CV (CV computed for each patient, then all 7 patients averaged) is shown for each phenotype. All 3 Average CV values are less than 16%, suggesting stable expression over time for each of these cell surface parameters.
Figure 3Phenotype hierarchy of central-memory like sets. The graph shows the family or hierarchy of 9 sets that match the criteria for long term memory peaks (statistically significant increases from time point A to time point B, and decreases from time point B to time point C, with P < 0.01 for each comparison), and are supersets or parent sets of the consensus central memory phenotype of CCR7+CD45RA-CD57-CD27+CD28+ (+--++).
Figure 4Long-term frequency changes for the T) and two associated supersets. (A) Plot illustrating the statistically significant increase in the TCM consensus phenotype frequency between PIVR and LTM for all 7 patients. (B) The concomitant decrease between LTM and P2B for the frequency of the consensus TCM phenotype. (C) The longitudinal expression profile for the TCM consensus phenotype showing LTM peaks for 4 of 7 patients; longitudinal profile for the CD45RA unspecified superset, CCR7+CD57-CD27+CD28+ (+.-++), showing LTM peaks for 6 of 7 patients; and longitudinal profile for the CD45RA, CD27, and CD28 unspecified superset, CCR7+CD57- (+.-..), also showing LTM peaks for 6 of 7 patients. Data suggests CD45RA, CD27, and CD28 may not be obligate descriptors for central memory T cells.
Figure 5Differences between control and wounded animals for 2 phenotypes from the CD31 panel. (A) Average frequency change from baseline (average of frequency differences for week 1 minus week 0, week 2 minus week 0, week 3 minus week 0, and week 4 minus week 0) is shown for control animals (solid circles) versus wounded animals (open circles) for phenotype CD29+CD31+CD56+CXCR4+CD90+Sca1-CD44+ (++++.+-+). The horizontal line represents the process control range (maximum frequency minus minimum frequency, calculated from 6 replicate samples) for this phenotype. There is no significant difference between the cohorts, due in part to the outlier at approximately 0.115 for one animal in the control cohort. (B) The same phenotype analysis with outlier removed shows a statistically significant difference between wounded and control cohorts. (C) Frequency differences between wounded and control animals for the phenotype superset, CD29+CXCR4+CD90+ (+..+.+..), which was common to 19 of the putative myogenic precursor phenotypes shown in Table 4. (D) Longitudinal profiles for all animals for week 0 through week 4 for set CD29+CD31+CD56+CXCR4+CD90+Sca1-CD44+ (++++.+-+). Control animals indicated by C, Wounded by W. Note the week 4 outlier on control animal C-P1120. This animal was removed from the analysis shown in (B) and (C).
23 CD29+CXCR4+ subsets showing significant differences between wounded and control animals.
| Panel | Relative Set Name | Absolute Set Name | P-Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| CD31 | CD29+CD31+CD56+CXCR4+CD90+Sca1-CD44+ | 0.027 | |
| CD31 | CD29+CD31+CD56+CXCR4+CD90+Sca1- | 0.027 | |
| CD31 | CD29+CD31+CXCR4+CD105-CD90+Sca1-CD44+ | 0.036 | |
| CD31 | CD29+CD31+CXCR4+CD105-CD90+Sca1- | 0.036 | |
| CD31 | CD29+CD31+CXCR4+CD105-Sca1-CD44+ | 0.027 | |
| CD31 | CD29+CD31+CXCR4+CD105-Sca1- | 0.028 | |
| CD31 | CD29+CD31+CXCR4+CD90+Sca1-CD44+ | 0.027 | |
| CD31 | CD29+CD31+CXCR4+CD90+Sca1- | 0.027 | |
| CD31 | CD29+CD31+CXCR4+CD90+CD44+ | 0.02 | |
| CD31 | CD29+CD31+CXCR4+CD90+ | 0.02 | |
| CD31 | CD29+CD31-CD56+CXCR4+CD105-CD90-Sca1- | 0.027 | |
| CD31 | CD29+CD56+CXCR4+CD105-CD90+Sca1-CD44+ | 0.02 | |
| CD31 | CD29+CD56+CXCR4+CD105-CD90+Sca1- | 0.02 | |
| CD31 | CD29+CD56+CXCR4+CD105-CD90+CD44+ | 0.02 | |
| CD31 | CD29+CD56+CXCR4+CD105-CD90+ | 0.02 | |
| CD31 | CD29+CD56+CXCR4+CD90+Sca1-CD44+ | 0.02 | |
| CD31 | CD29+CD56+CXCR4+CD90+Sca1- | 0.02 | |
| CD31 | CD29+CD56+CXCR4+CD90+CD44+ | 0.02 | |
| CD31 | CD29+CD56+CXCR4+CD90+ | 0.02 | |
| CD31 | CD29+CXCR4+CD105-CD90+CD44+ | 0.014 | |
| CD31 | CD29+CXCR4+CD105-CD90+ | 0.014 | |
| CD31 | CD29+CXCR4+CD90+CD44+ | 0.014 | |
| CD31 | CD29+CXCR4+CD90+ | 0.014 | |
Relative set name, absolute set name, and p-value (Wilcoxon rank sum, one-sided) are shown. P-values are calculated excluding data for one outlier control animal. These are also sets in which at least 6 of 8 wounded animals show average delta readouts greater than the process control range.