Response definition criteria for ELISPOT assays revisited

No consensus has been reached on how to determine if an immune response has been detected based on raw data from an ELISPOT assay. The goal of this paper is to enable investigators to understand and readily implement currently available methods for response determination. We describe empirical and statistical approaches, identifying the strengths and limitations of each approach to allow readers to rationally select and apply a scientifically sound method appropriate to their specific laboratory setting. Five representative approaches were applied to data sets from the CIMT Immunoguiding Program and the response detection and false positive rates were compared. Simulation studies were also performed to compare empirical and statistical approaches. Based on these, we recommend the use of a non-parametric statistical test. Further, we recommend that six medium control wells or four wells each for both medium control and experimental conditions be performed to increase the sensitivity in detecting a response, that replicates with large variation in spot counts be filtered out, and that positive responses arising from experimental spot counts below the estimated limit of detection be interpreted with caution. Moreover, a web-based user interface was developed to allow easy access to the recommended statistical methods. This interface allows the user to upload data from an ELISPOT assay and obtain an output file of the binary responses.

[1]  C. Gouttefangeas,et al.  Toward the harmonization of immune monitoring in clinical trials: Quo vadis? , 2007, Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy.

[2]  G Gerken,et al.  Quantification of CD8+ T lymphocytes responsive to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) peptide antigens in HIV-infected patients and seronegative persons at high risk for recent HIV exposure. , 1998, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[3]  Marian Kelley.  Considerations While Setting Up Cell‐Based Assays , 2008 .

[4]  Tom H. M. Ottenhoff,et al.  Identification of Major Factors Influencing ELISpot-Based Monitoring of Cellular Responses to Antigens from Mycobacterium tuberculosis , 2009, PloS one.

[5]  Bjoern Peters,et al.  HLA class I supertypes: a revised and updated classification , 2008, BMC Immunology.

[6]  Sylvia Janetzki,et al.  Evaluation of CD8+ T‐cell frequencies by the Elispot assay in healthy individuals and in patients with metastatic melanoma immunized with tyrosinase peptide , 2000, International journal of cancer.

[7]  Marian Kelley,et al.  Validation of cell-based assays in the GLP setting : , 2008 .

[8]  Ferdousi Chowdhury,et al.  Fit for purpose? A case study: validation of immunological endpoint assays for the detection of cellular and humoral responses to anti-tumour DNA fusion vaccines , 2009, Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy.

[9]  Michael G Hudgens,et al.  Statistical considerations for the design and analysis of the ELISpot assay in HIV-1 vaccine trials. , 2004, Journal of immunological methods.

[10]  Yogendra P. Chaubey.  Resampling-Based Multiple Testing: Examples and Methods for p-Value Adjustment , 1993 .

[11]  J. Alexander,et al.  Theory and Methods: Critical Essays in Human Geography , 2008 .

[12]  Sylvia Janetzki,et al.  "MIATA"-minimal information about T cell assays. , 2009, Immunity.

[13]  Marian Kelley,et al.  Comprar Validation of Cell-Based Assays in the GLP Setting: A Practical Guide | Uma Prabhakar | 9780470028766 | Wiley , 2008 .

[14]  H. Dockrell,et al.  Immunological Outcomes of New Tuberculosis Vaccine Trials: WHO Panel Recommendations , 2008, PLoS medicine.

[15]  J. Hsu.  Multiple Comparisons: Theory and Methods , 1996 .

[16]  Sjoerd H van der Burg,et al.  Therapeutic vaccines in cancer: moving from immunomonitoring to immunoguiding , 2008, Expert review of vaccines.

[17]  L. Hsiao,et al.  A sensitive ELISPOT assay to detect low-frequency human T lymphocytes. , 1997, Journal of immunological methods.

[18]  Devan Mehrotra,et al.  Detection of HIV Vaccine-Induced Cell-Mediated Immunity in HIV-Seronegative Clinical Trial Participants Using an Optimized and Validated Enzyme-Linked Immunospot Assay , 2007, Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes.

[19]  C. Gouttefangeas,et al.  Serum is not required for ex vivo IFN-γ ELISPOT: a collaborative study of different protocols from the European CIMT Immunoguiding Program , 2010, Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy.

[20]  A. Mackensen,et al.  The CIMT-monitoring panel: a two-step approach to harmonize the enumeration of antigen-specific CD8+ T lymphocytes by structural and functional assays , 2007, Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy.

[21]  Holden T Maecker,et al.  Precision and linearity targets for validation of an IFNγ ELISPOT, cytokine flow cytometry, and tetramer assay using CMV peptides , 2008, BMC Immunology.

[22]  Zoe Moodie,et al.  Statistical positivity criteria for the analysis of ELISpot assay data in HIV-1 vaccine trials. , 2006, Journal of immunological methods.

[23]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  More powerful procedures for multiple significance testing. , 1990, Statistics in medicine.

[24]  Sylvia Janetzki,et al.  Results and harmonization guidelines from two large-scale international Elispot proficiency panels conducted by the Cancer Vaccine Consortium (CVC/SVI) , 2007, Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy.

[25]  Yingdong Zhao,et al.  A systematic approach to biomarker discovery; Preamble to "the iSBTc-FDA taskforce on immunotherapy biomarkers" , 2008, Journal of Translational Medicine.

[26]  Sylvia Janetzki,et al.  Standardization and validation issues of the ELISPOT assay. , 2005, Methods in molecular biology.

[27]  Guido Ferrari,et al.  Results of an ELISPOT proficiency panel conducted in 11 laboratories participating in international human immunodeficiency virus type 1 vaccine trials. , 2005, AIDS research and human retroviruses.