4.7 Review

Modeling flow cytometry data for cancer vaccine immune monitoring

Journal

CANCER IMMUNOLOGY IMMUNOTHERAPY
Volume 59, Issue 9, Pages 1435-1441

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00262-010-0883-4

Keywords

Flow cytometry; Immune monitoring; Model-based analysis; Automation; Standardization; Markov chain Monte Carlo

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [RC1AI086032-01, UL1RR024128, 1P30 AI 64518]
  2. NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES [UL1RR024128] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES [P30AI064518, RC1AI086032] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Flow cytometry (FCM) is widely used in cancer research for diagnosis, detection of minimal residual disease, as well as immune monitoring and profiling following immunotherapy. In all these applications, the challenge is to detect extremely rare cell subsets while avoiding spurious positive events. To achieve this objective, it helps to be able to analyze FCM data using multiple markers simultaneously, since the additional information provided often helps to minimize the number of false positive and false negative events, hence increasing both sensitivity and specificity. However, with manual gating, at most two markers can be examined in a single dot plot, and a sequential strategy is often used. As the sequential strategy discards events that fall outside preceding gates at each stage, the effectiveness of the strategy is difficult to evaluate without laborious and painstaking back-gating. Model-based analysis is a promising computational technique that works using information from all marker dimensions simultaneously, and offers an alternative approach to flow analysis that can usefully complement manual gating in the design of optimal gating strategies. Results from model-based analysis will be illustrated with examples from FCM assays commonly used in cancer immunotherapy laboratories.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available