Search

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has emphasized the importance and challenges of correctly interpreting antibody test results. Identification of positive and negative samples requires a classification strategy with low error rates, which is hard to achieve when the corresponding measurement values overlap. Additional uncertainty arises when classification schemes fail to account for complicated structure in data. We address these problems through a mathematical framework that combines high dimensional data modeling and optimal decision theory. Specifically, we show that appropriately increasing the dimension of data better separates positive and negative populations and reveals nuanced structure that can be described in terms of mathematical models. We combine these models with optimal decision theory to yield a classification scheme that better separates positive and negative samples relative to traditional methods such as confidence intervals (CIs) and receiver operating characteristics. We validate the usefulness of this approach in the context of a multiplex salivary SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G assay dataset. This example illustrates how our analysis: (i) improves the assay accuracy, (e.g. lowers classification errors by up to 42% compared to CI methods); (ii) reduces the number of indeterminate samples when an inconclusive class is permissible, (e.g. by 40% compared to the original analysis of the example multiplex dataset) and (iii) decreases the number of antigens needed to classify samples. Our work showcases the power of mathematical modeling in diagnostic classification and highlights a method that can be adopted broadly in public health and clinical settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Signals analysis for cytometry remains a challenging task that has a significant impact on uncertainty. Conventional cytometers assume that individual measurements are well characterized by simple properties such as the signal area, width, and height. However, these approaches have difficulty distinguishing inherent biological variability from instrument artifacts and operating conditions. As a result, it is challenging to quantify uncertainty in the properties of individual cells and perform tasks such as doublet deconvolution. We address these problems via signals analysis techniques that use scale transformations to: (I) separate variation in biomarker expression from effects due to flow conditions and particle size; (II) quantify reproducibility associated with a given laser interrogation region; (III) estimate uncertainty in measurement values on a per-event basis; and (IV) extract the singlets that make up a multiplet. The key idea behind this approach is to model how variable operating conditions deform the signal shape and then use constrained optimization to "undo" these deformations for measured signals; residuals to this process characterize reproducibility. Using a recently developed microfluidic cytometer, we demonstrate that these techniques can account for instrument and measurand induced variability with a residual uncertainty of less than 2.5% in the signal shape and less than 1% in integrated area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the field of cell-based therapeutics, there is a great need for high-quality, robust, and validated measurements for cell characterization. Flow cytometry has emerged as a critically important platform due to its high-throughput capability and its ability to simultaneously measure multiple parameters in the same sample. However, to assure the confidence in measurement, well characterized biological reference materials are needed for standardizing clinical assays and harmonizing flow cytometric results between laboratories. To date, the lack of adequate reference materials, and the complexity of the cytometer instrumentation have resulted in few standards. This study was designed to evaluate CD19 expression in three potential biological cell reference materials and provide a preliminary assessment of their suitability to support future development of CD19 reference standards. Three commercially available human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) obtained from three different manufacturers were tested. Variables that could potentially contribute to the differences in the CD19 expression, such as PBMCs manufacturing process, number of healthy donors used in manufacturing each PBMC lot, antibody reagent, operators, and experimental days were included in our evaluation. CD19 antibodies bound per cell (ABC) values were measured using two flow cytometry-based quantification schemes with two independent calibration methods, a single point calibration using a CD4 reference cell and QuantiBrite PE bead calibration. Three lots of PBMC from three different manufacturers were obtained. Each lot of PBMC was tested on three different experimental days by three operators using three different lots of unimolar anti-CD19PE conjugates. CD19 ABC values were obtained in parallel on a selected lot of the PBMC samples using mass spectrometry (CyTOF) with two independent calibration methods, EQ4 and bead-based calibration were evaluated with CyTOF-technology. Including all studied variabilities such as PBMC lot, antibody reagent lot, and operator, the averaged mean values of CD19 ABC for the three PBMC manufacturers (A,B, and C) obtained by flow cytometry were found to be: 7953 with a %CV of 9.0 for PBMC-A, 10535 with a %CV of 7.8 for PBMC-B, and 12384 with a %CV of 16 for PBMC-C. These CD19 ABC values agree closely with the findings using CyTOF. The averaged mean values of CD19 ABC for the tested PBMCs is 9295 using flow cytometry-based method and 9699 using CyTOF. The relative contributions from various sources of uncertainty in CD19 ABC values were quantified for the flow cytometry-based measurement scheme. This uncertainty analysis suggests that the number of antigens or ligand binding sites per cell in each PBMC preparation is the largest source of variability. On the other hand, the calibration method does not add significant uncertainty to the expression estimates. Our preliminary assessment showed the suitability of the tested materials to serve as PBMC-based CD19+ reference control materials for use in quantifying relevant B cell markers in B cell lymphoproliferative disorders and immunotherapy. However, users should consider the variabilities resulting from different lots of PBMC and antibody reagent when utilizing cell-based reference materials for quantification purposes and perform bridging studies to ensure harmonization between the results before switching to a new lot. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]