» Articles » PMID: 30244531

Methodology for Evaluating and Comparing Flow Cytometers: A Multisite Study of 23 Instruments

Overview
Journal Cytometry A
Specialties Cell Biology
Radiology
Date 2018 Sep 24
PMID 30244531
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

We demonstrate improved methods for making valid and accurate comparisons of fluorescence measurement capabilities among instruments tested at different sites and times. We designed a suite of measurements and automated data processing methods to obtain consistent objective results and applied them to a selection of 23 instruments at nine sites to provide a range of instruments as well as multiple instances of similar instruments. As far as we know, this study represents the most accurate methods and results so far demonstrated for this purpose. The first component of the study reporting improved methods for photoelectron scale (Spe) evaluations, which was published previously (Parks, El Khettabi, Chase, Hoffman, Perfetto, Spidlen, Wood, Moore, and Brinkman: Cytometry A 91 (2017) 232-249). Those results which were within themselves are not sufficient for instrument comparisons, so here, we use the Spe scale results for the 23 cytometers and combine them with additional information from the analysis suite to obtain the metrics actually needed for instrument evaluations and comparisons. We adopted what we call the 2+2SD limit of resolution as a maximally informative metric, for evaluating and comparing dye measurement sensitivity among different instruments and measurement channels. Our results demonstrate substantial differences among different classes of instruments in both dye response and detection sensitivity and some surprisingly large differences among similar instruments, even among instruments with nominally identical configurations. On some instruments, we detected defective measurement channels needing service. The system can be applied in shared resource laboratories and other facilities as an aspect of quality assurance, and accurate instrument comparisons can be valuable for selecting instruments for particular purposes and for making informed instrument acquisition decisions. An institutionally supported program could serve the cytometry community by facilitating access to materials, and analysis and maintaining an archive of results. © 2018 International Society for Advancement of Cytometry.

Citing Articles

Comparison of EV characterization by commercial high-sensitivity flow cytometers and a custom single-molecule flow cytometer.

Kim J, Xu S, Jung S, Nguyen A, Cheng Y, Zhao M J Extracell Vesicles. 2024; 13(8):e12498.

PMID: 39140467 PMC: 11322860. DOI: 10.1002/jev2.12498.


Quantitative flow cytometry enables end-to-end optimization of cross-platform extracellular vesicle studies.

Cook S, Tang V, Lannigan J, Jones J, Welsh J Cell Rep Methods. 2023; 3(12):100664.

PMID: 38113854 PMC: 10753385. DOI: 10.1016/j.crmeth.2023.100664.


Experimental procedures for flow cytometry of wild-type mouse brain: a systematic review.

Sharp R, Guenther D, Farrer M Front Immunol. 2023; 14:1281705.

PMID: 38022545 PMC: 10646240. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1281705.


Guidelines for the use of flow cytometry and cell sorting in immunological studies (third edition).

Cossarizza A, Chang H, Radbruch A, Abrignani S, Addo R, Akdis M Eur J Immunol. 2021; 51(12):2708-3145.

PMID: 34910301 PMC: 11115438. DOI: 10.1002/eji.202170126.


Comparative analysis of three studies measuring fluorescence from engineered bacterial genetic constructs.

Beal J, Baldwin G, Farny N, Gershater M, Haddock-Angelli T, Buckley-Taylor R PLoS One. 2021; 16(6):e0252263.

PMID: 34097703 PMC: 8183995. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252263.


References
1.
Chase E, Hoffman R . Resolution of dimly fluorescent particles: a practical measure of fluorescence sensitivity. Cytometry. 1998; 33(2):267-79. View

2.
Stoner S, Duggan E, Condello D, Guerrero A, Turk J, Narayanan P . High sensitivity flow cytometry of membrane vesicles. Cytometry A. 2015; 89(2):196-206. DOI: 10.1002/cyto.a.22787. View

3.
Parks D, El Khettabi F, Chase E, Hoffman R, Perfetto S, Spidlen J . Evaluating flow cytometer performance with weighted quadratic least squares analysis of LED and multi-level bead data. Cytometry A. 2017; 91(3):232-249. PMC: 5483398. DOI: 10.1002/cyto.a.23052. View

4.
Wood J . Fundamental flow cytometer properties governing sensitivity and resolution. Cytometry. 1998; 33(2):260-6. View

5.
Hoffman R, Wood J . Characterization of flow cytometer instrument sensitivity. Curr Protoc Cytom. 2008; Chapter 1:Unit1.20. DOI: 10.1002/0471142956.cy0120s40. View