↓ Skip to main content

Automated Analysis of Flow Cytometry Data to Reduce Inter-Lab Variation in the Detection of Major Histocompatibility Complex Multimer-Binding T Cells

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Automated Analysis of Flow Cytometry Data to Reduce Inter-Lab Variation in the Detection of Major Histocompatibility Complex Multimer-Binding T Cells
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, July 2017
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2017.00858
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natasja Wulff Pedersen, P. Anoop Chandran, Yu Qian, Jonathan Rebhahn, Nadia Viborg Petersen, Mathilde Dalsgaard Hoff, Scott White, Alexandra J. Lee, Rick Stanton, Charlotte Halgreen, Kivin Jakobsen, Tim Mosmann, Cécile Gouttefangeas, Cliburn Chan, Richard H. Scheuermann, Sine Reker Hadrup

Abstract

Manual analysis of flow cytometry data and subjective gate-border decisions taken by individuals continue to be a source of variation in the assessment of antigen-specific T cells when comparing data across laboratories, and also over time in individual labs. Therefore, strategies to provide automated analysis of major histocompatibility complex (MHC) multimer-binding T cells represent an attractive solution to decrease subjectivity and technical variation. The challenge of using an automated analysis approach is that MHC multimer-binding T cell populations are often rare and therefore difficult to detect. We used a highly heterogeneous dataset from a recent MHC multimer proficiency panel to assess if MHC multimer-binding CD8(+) T cells could be analyzed with computational solutions currently available, and if such analyses would reduce the technical variation across different laboratories. We used three different methods, FLOw Clustering without K (FLOCK), Scalable Weighted Iterative Flow-clustering Technique (SWIFT), and ReFlow to analyze flow cytometry data files from 28 laboratories. Each laboratory screened for antigen-responsive T cell populations with frequency ranging from 0.01 to 1.5% of lymphocytes within samples from two donors. Experience from this analysis shows that all three programs can be used for the identification of high to intermediate frequency of MHC multimer-binding T cell populations, with results very similar to that of manual gating. For the less frequent populations (<0.1% of live, single lymphocytes), SWIFT outperformed the other tools. As used in this study, none of the algorithms offered a completely automated pipeline for identification of MHC multimer populations, as varying degrees of human interventions were needed to complete the analysis. In this study, we demonstrate the feasibility of using automated analysis pipelines for assessing and identifying even rare populations of antigen-responsive T cells and discuss the main properties, differences, and advantages of the different methods tested.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 21%
Researcher 10 21%
Other 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Master 4 8%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 9 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 8 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 15%
Engineering 5 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Computer Science 4 8%
Other 11 23%
Unknown 9 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 August 2017.
All research outputs
#14,948,671
of 26,414,132 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#12,093
of 33,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,562
of 332,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#195
of 423 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,414,132 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,172 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,512 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 423 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.