Journal: bioRxiv
Article Title: Reproducible detection of antigen-specific T cells and Tregs via standardized and automated activation-induced marker assay workflows
doi: 10.1101/2025.07.15.664847
Figure Lengend Snippet: (A) Individuals were trained on identical gating protocols and analyzed the same data files from three technical replicates of 20-h AIM assays with CMV pp65 peptides or SARS-CoV-2 Spike peptides on healthy donor PBMCs (n = 6) collected at four distinct sites designated A-D. Raw flow cytometric data from each replicate at each site was analyzed independently by 3 different individuals. Data represent CVs between individual analysts, as a mean of the analyst CV for the three technical replicates of each donor-site combination. (B and C) An automated AIM gating pipeline was created via analysis of AIM assay data from healthy donors (n = 6) assayed in triplicate at each of four research centres. Comparative flow cytometric gating approaches for manual and automated analyses are shown for (B) CD4 + CD134 + /CD25 + and (C) CD8 + CD137 + /CD69 + T cells following a 20-h incubation of cryopreserved PBMCs with no antigen (unstimulated), CMV pp65 peptides, SARS-CoV-2 Spike peptides or CytoStim. The CytoStim condition was used by the automated software to set donor-specific AIM gates, which were then applied to other stimulation conditions for that donor. (D-F) Multi-centre CMV and SARS-CoV-2 AIM assay data were analyzed manually or using the automated gating software. A central analyst (C1) defined the gating strategy, provided instructions to the manual analysts (C2 and O1-O4), oversaw automated gating development, and was the reference for comparisons. C1, C2 and the automated software each analyzed all data from all sites, while O1-O4 each analyzed data from a single site (O1: A, O2: B, O3: C, O4: D). (D-F) Box-Cox-corrected AIM SI values are shown for (D) CMV and (E) SARS-CoV-2 Spike AIM assays. P-values were calculated via post-hoc Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test following mixed effects analysis and represent paired comparisons between each analyst and C1, and used to compute (F) the total number of comparisons for C2 and automated analyses that were significantly different from the analysis by C1 for CD4 + AIMs. Each of the 32 distinct combinations of CD4 + AIM, site and antigen (CMV or SARS-CoV-2) was considered to be one comparison. Pooled analysis of all comparisons was performed using Fisher’s exact test. (G-I) Spearman correlations of AIM SI values for C1, C2, O1-O4 (pooled) and automated analyses for CMV and for SARS-CoV-2 Spike. Comparisons are shown against (G and H) the reference C1 and (I) for each analyst against all others in a correlation matrix. (J) F1 scores calculated for C2 manual vs. C1 reference (grey) or automated vs. C1 reference (green) analysis of CMV and SARS-CoV-2 AIM assay data. Each point represents the F1 score from a unique donor-site combination, with p-values calculated via paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test after averaging F1 scores from technical replicates. ns, not significant (p > 0.05); *, p ≤ 0.05; **, p ≤ 0.01; ***, p ≤ 0.001; ****, p ≤ 0.0001. See also Figures S15-S19.
Article Snippet: Cells were incubated for 6, 20 or 44 h with media, 1.5 μg/mL PepTivator CMV pp65 (Miltenyi), 3.3 μg/mL CMV pp65 recombinant protein (Miltenyi), 1 μg/mL PepTivator SARS-CoV-2 Prot_S (Miltenyi), 1/100 Infanrix hexa (GSK) or 1/400 CytoStim (Miltenyi).
Techniques: Incubation, Software, Comparison