Literature DB >> 27021273

Variability of the IFN-γ ELISpot assay in the context of proficiency testing and bridging studies.

Wes Rountree1, Mark Berrong2, Ana M Sanchez2, Thomas N Denny2, Guido Ferrari2.   

Abstract

Assays that assess cellular mediated immune responses performed under Good Clinical Laboratory Practice (GCLP) guidelines are required to provide specific and reproducible results. Defined validation procedures are required to establish the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), include pass and fail criteria, as well as implement positivity criteria. However, little to no guidance is provided on how to perform longitudinal assessment of the key reagents utilized in the assay. Through the External Quality Assurance Program Oversight Laboratory (EQAPOL), an Interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) Enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot (ELISpot) assay proficiency testing program is administered. A limit of acceptable within site variability was estimated after six rounds of proficiency testing (PT). Previously, a PT send-out specific within site variability limit was calculated based on the dispersion (variance/mean) of the nine replicate wells of data. Now an overall 'dispersion limit' for the ELISpot PT program within site variability has been calculated as a dispersion of 3.3. The utility of this metric was assessed using a control sample to calculate the within (precision) and between (accuracy) experiment variability to determine if the dispersion limit could be applied to bridging studies (studies that assess lot-to-lot variations of key reagents) for comparing the accuracy of results with new lots to results with old lots. Finally, simulations were conducted to explore how this dispersion limit could provide guidance in the number of replicate wells needed for within and between experiment variability and the appropriate donor reactivity (number of antigen-specific cells) to be used for the evaluation of new reagents. Our bridging study simulations indicate using a minimum of six replicate wells of a control donor sample with reactivity of at least 150 spot forming cells per well is optimal. To determine significant lot-to-lot variations use the 3.3 dispersion limit for between and within experiment variability.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bridging study; ELISpot; EQAPOL; Poisson; Proficiency testing; Variability

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27021273      PMCID: PMC4860083          DOI: 10.1016/j.jim.2016.03.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Immunol Methods        ISSN: 0022-1759            Impact factor:   2.303


  14 in total

1.  Normal values for blood constituents; inter-hospital differences.

Authors:  I D P WOOTTON; E J KING
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1953-03-07       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  Statistical considerations for the design and analysis of the ELISpot assay in HIV-1 vaccine trials.

Authors:  Michael G Hudgens; Steven G Self; Ya-Lin Chiu; Nina D Russell; Helen Horton; M Juliana McElrath
Journal:  J Immunol Methods       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 2.303

3.  The External Quality Assurance Oversight Laboratory (EQAPOL) proficiency program for IFN-gamma enzyme-linked immunospot (IFN-γ ELISpot) assay.

Authors:  Ana M Sanchez; Wes Rountree; Mark Berrong; Ambrosia Garcia; Alexandra Schuetz; Josephine Cox; Nicole Frahm; Mark Manak; Marcella Sarzotti-Kelsoe; M Patricia D'Souza; Thomas Denny; Guido Ferrari
Journal:  J Immunol Methods       Date:  2014-03-28       Impact factor: 2.303

4.  A survey of the accuracy of chemical analyses in clinical laboratories.

Authors:  W P BELK; F W SUNDERMAN
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  1947-11       Impact factor: 2.493

5.  Statistical methods for the assessment of EQAPOL proficiency testing: ELISpot, Luminex, and Flow Cytometry.

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

Review 6.  Development and implementation of a proficiency testing program for Luminex bead-based cytokine assays.

Authors:  Heather E Lynch; Ana M Sanchez; M Patricia D'Souza; Wes Rountree; Thomas N Denny; Michael Kalos; Gregory D Sempowski
Journal:  J Immunol Methods       Date:  2014-05-04       Impact factor: 2.303

7.  Response definition criteria for ELISPOT assays revisited.

Authors:  Z Moodie; L Price; C Gouttefangeas; A Mander; S Janetzki; M Löwer; M J P Welters; C Ottensmeier; S H van der Burg; Cedrik M Britten
Journal:  Cancer Immunol Immunother       Date:  2010-06-15       Impact factor: 6.968

8.  Toward development of a comprehensive external quality assurance program for polyfunctional intracellular cytokine staining assays.

Authors:  Janet S Staats; Jennifer H Enzor; Ana M Sanchez; Wes Rountree; Cliburn Chan; Maria Jaimes; Ray Chun-Fai Chan; Amitabh Gaur; Thomas N Denny; Kent J Weinhold
Journal:  J Immunol Methods       Date:  2014-06-23       Impact factor: 2.303

9.  Moving to human immunodeficiency virus type 1 vaccine efficacy trials: defining T cell responses as potential correlates of immunity.

Authors:  Nina D Russell; Michael G Hudgens; Richard Ha; Colin Havenar-Daughton; M Juliana McElrath
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  2003-01-06       Impact factor: 5.226

10.  Results and harmonization guidelines from two large-scale international Elispot proficiency panels conducted by the Cancer Vaccine Consortium (CVC/SVI).

Authors:  Sylvia Janetzki; Katherine S Panageas; Leah Ben-Porat; Jean Boyer; Cedrik M Britten; Timothy M Clay; Michael Kalos; Holden T Maecker; Pedro Romero; Jianda Yuan; W Martin Kast; Axel Hoos
Journal:  Cancer Immunol Immunother       Date:  2007-08-25       Impact factor: 6.968

View more
  1 in total

1.  Comparison of Rapid Cytokine Immunoassays for Functional Immune Phenotyping.

Authors:  Anthony S Bonavia; Abigail Samuelsen; Zissis C Chroneos; Eric Scott Halstead
Journal:  Front Immunol       Date:  2022-07-04       Impact factor: 8.786

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.