Saturday, August 20, 2016

5 Gating Strategies To Get Your Flow Cytometry Data Published In Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals

Written by Tim Bushnell, PhD


“Every block of stone has a statue inside it and it is the task of the sculptor to discover it.” - Michelangelo


When sitting down to perform a new analysis of flow cytometry data, it is much like Michelangelo staring at a piece of marble. There is a story inside the data, and it is the job of the researcher to unravel it.


The critical difference between sculptor and scientist is that while the sculptor is guided by a creative vision, the researcher is guided by very particular laws of nature and a specific method of working through a biological hypothesis to avoid shaping the results to his or her whims.


Science must be objective, or it is simply an exercise in creative sculpting, which does nothing to move science forward.


Thankfully, there are many ways to avoid shaping the results, and instead sifting for the real and actual data that is relevant to the flow cytometry experiment at hand.


Communicating the results of a flow cytometry experiment is where the researcher has the power to make new or subtle findings instantly comprehensible to the audience. This is also where science becomes an art form.


5 Gating Strategies For Publishing Flow Cytometry Data


Gating is a data reduction technique.


While actual cells will not be lost in trying various gating strategies, data points can be eliminated from your population. In other words, you can reuse and refine your gates and plots over and over again without actually losing cells, but you and you alone will determine which events you are displaying. Hopefully, you will objectively choose the right events to display.


To this end, the following hierarchy was created to help you gate your events correctly…



  • Flow stability gating - to capture events once the flow stream has stabilized, eliminating effects of clogging, back-pressure, and other instrument issues.



  • Pulse geometry gating - to remove doublets from the dataset.



  • Forward and side scatter gating - to remove debris and other events of non-interest while preserving cells based on size and or complexity.



  • Subsetting gating - to rely on expression of markers and what they identify. Using viability dyes and dump channels further narrow to the cells of interest. This is where Fluorescence Minus One (FMO) controls become critical in defining the populations of interest.



  • Backgating - to provide visualization of cells in final gate at higher level.


The details on this hierarchy, including how each fits together sequentially to produce the optimal flow cytometry figure for every experiment, are outlined below…


1. Flow stability gating.


The principle of this step is to ensure a good and even flow stream during the instrument's run.


Clogging, back-pressure and other instrument-related issues can affect the flow, so eliminating cells that may have been affected by such problems is an important step to cleaning up the data. An example of this is shown in the below plots.


These plots show the sample running evenly over the time of acquisition. The data are plotted against a time parameter versus a scatter parameter. Either forward scatter or side scatter are good choices, as they are both intrinsic measurements of all events passing through the laser intercept.peer reviewed scientific journals | Expert Cytometry | flow cytometry data analysis


The red gate on the right-handed plot was used to remove the first seconds of the run where the instrument was in the process of stabilizing the run and not yet 'flowing' evenly.


A recent paper published by Fletez-Brant et al., introduced an automated program in R called “flowClean”, which can do this process in an unbiased, automated fashion.


Interestingly, when this program was run on over 29,000 files in the FlowRepository, the authors showed almost 14% had fluorescent anomalies.


Failure to address this problem reduces the sensitivity of all experimental measurements and may result in inaccurate data and results.


2. Pulse geometry gating.


This gate is used to remove doublets from the dataset and is particularly useful with digital data.


When cells pass through the laser intercept and fluoresce, the photons are converted to an electronic pulse in the photomultiplier tube.


The instrument can measure three characteristics: the height of the pulse, the width of the pulse (or time of 'flight'), and the area of the pulse (see below figure).peer reviewed scientific journals | Expert Cytometry | flow cytometry data analysis


In the case of clumps of cells, the transit time increases, thus the area will also increase. 


In a plot of the area versus the height measurement, the single cells typically fall along a diagonal, while the clumps of cells will show up with increased area relative to the height.


Using this pulse geometry gate removes these clumps, which is important because flow cytometry analysis is based on single cell analysis, not doublet cell analysis or 'clump' analysis.


Another example of pulse geometry gating is shown below. Here, the pulse geometry gate is applied to 487,000 cells and, as shown, over 93.7% of them are single cells. This reduced the initial dataset by 30,000 cells.Figure3_-_DataAnalysis


3. Forward and side scatter gating.


Forward and side scatter gating is one of the most common gating strategies used in flow cytometry analysis.


The goal is to identify the cells of interest based on the relative size and complexity of the cells, while removing debris and other events that are not of interest.


It is recommended that this gating strategy be as generous as possible, to eliminate ONLY those events that are absolutely not of interest.


As shown in the figure below, the major density of events is captured by this gate. The events with very low FSC and SSC, as well as those with low FSC and high SSC are eliminated. These events represent debris, cell fragments and pyknotic cells. As a result, approximately 45,000 more events have been eliminated from the analysis.Figure4_-_DataAnalysis


4. Subsetting gating.


This is where the major work of data analysis is done. Subsetting gates rely on the expression levels of markers in the analysis, and what those makers identify.


Using tools like viability dyes and dump channels, more unwanted cells are removed to reveal the data relevant to the experiment and the overall hypothesis behind the experiment.


When designing a panel, adding a viability dye is critical to ensure that dead cells, which can non-specifically take up antibodies, are eliminated from the analysis.


The dump channel is useful for 'mass'-eliminating specific markers that represent cells that are not of interest to the researcher. For example, when performing a T-cell analysis, one might add markers for B-cells, macrophages, monocytes, and the like into a single channel.


Figure5_-_DataAnalysis


As seen in the above figure, plotting a viability marker against a dump channel eliminated another 189,000 events.


Moving forward, additional analysis to identify the specific cells of interest, in this case CD3+CD4+ cells, continues (as shown below). These additional gates have eliminated over 70% of the events that were initially collected on the flow cytometer.Figure6_-_DataAnalysis

Of the 487,000 cells that were present in the first plot, there are only 127,785 cells remaining - that is to say, a total of 127,785 CD3+CD4+ cells are present.


Knowing what the relative percentage of your final population is will ensure that sufficient cells are collected for meaningful statistical analyses.  


At this point, you should consider your FMO controls, which are used to define the final cellular subsets, in this case CD25+FoxP3+ cells. The FMO control is very useful in addressing issues of how spectral spillover from other fluorochromes in the panel affect the spread of the data in the channel of interest. In the case of the data being analyzed, a gate is drawn on the fully stained sample, and applied to the FMO controls to confirm positioning.


Based on the FMO controls applied to the two right-hand plots below, it is clear that the gate in the left-hand plot is in a good position. Now, the analysis is down to only 2,800 cells.


From here, the researcher would be able to extract additional information, in the form of median fluorescent intensity values, or percentages of cells expressing markers of interest on the identified 'regulatory T-cells', as defined by CD3+CD4+CD25+FoxP3+.Figure7_-_DataAnalysis


5. Backgating.


Backgating is a technique that should be applied at the very end of your gating analysis.


This technique allows for the visualization of the cells in the final gate at a higher level. The goal of this gating strategy is to determine if any cells are being missed by the gating strategies that have been previously applied.Figure8_-_DataAnalysis


As the red dots in the above right-handed plots show, the FSCxSSC gating could be tightened up, reducing the 'noise' downstream. Likewise, the viability gate clearly shows why this particular gate is valuable, as there would be a fraction of cells that would be included if this gate was not used.


Once the gating strategy has been developed and validated, it is time to move to extracting the necessary statistics that will be used to answer the biological question. With careful application of the gates discussed above and the proper experimental controls, the researcher should have freed 'the statue in the stone'. Michelangelo would be proud.


To learn more about how to get your flow cytometry data published and to get access to all of our advanced materials including 20 training videos, presentations, workbooks, and private group membership, get on the Flow Cytometry Mastery Class wait list.


Flow Cytometry Mastery Class wait list | Expert Cytometry | Flow Cytometry Training

Saturday, August 6, 2016

How To Create A Flow Cytometry Quality Assurance Protocol For Your Lab

By EditaMotyčáková, Ph.D.


Editor's note: This is based on Edita's experiences implementing the proposals reported in Perfetto et al., (2012) Nature Protocols 7:2067.  She submitted this to the ExCyte Mastery Class and developed the Excel sheet (attached) to assist others in tracking their QC data.


Developing and implementing a new Quality Control (QC) protocol can sometimes be a daunting task.


With the continued emphasis on reproducibility in science, QC programs are an essential step that cytometrists are encouraged to both develop and implement.


This QC program comprises several assays that are focused on three important characteristics of the flow cytometer:


(1) Optimal instrument setting (e.g. instrument optimization)


(2) Cytometer sensitivity (e.g. instrument calibration)


(3) Monitoring of day-to-day variability in measurement (e.g. quality assurance)


QC Program Step #1 - Instrument Optimization


Instrument optimization assays include protocols useful for determination of laser power, photoelectron efficiency, testing of filter characteristics, evaluation of signal synchronization, and laser delay determination.


These are central characteristics of the flow cytometer and understanding these values at installation help ensure that when changes are made, the system is performing as well as when it was first brought into service.


In addition to making these measurements at installation, instruments should also be optimized whenever the optical pathways are changed, including: changing a filter installation, installation of a new laser, and/or realignment because of a new flow cell. Basically, whenever an optical pathway is changed. This gives the user a baseline to know how the instrument is performing and a reference for when there are issues.


Instrument optimizations do require some specialized equipment, namely a laser power meter and super-reflecting mirror to perform any of these tests.


QC Program Step #2 - Cytometer Calibration


There are two separate protocols necessary for cytometer calibration:



  • Determining the sensitivity of PMTs

  • Validation of PMT sensitivity


To complete the first protocol, three bead sets are needed. For this work, you should use:



To generate the top graphs in the below figure, the voltage was plotted against the Signal-to-Background (S-T-B). This is calculated by dividing the median fluorescent intensity (MFI) of a well-separated peak by the background MFI. In this case, I chose the 4th peak, as it was nicely displayed and recognized throughout most of voltage range and on most detectors.


These data also allow for the determination of PMT linearity, which is measured as difference between MFIs of two adjacent peaks from multiple-peak beads divided by MFI of lower peak from selected peak pair. Like the PMT calibration, this value is plotted over the voltage range.Figure_#1_How-To_Quality_Assurance


To interpret the top graphs in the above figure, you need to determine the voltage with the highest S-T-B.  As shown above, the FL1 detector (BP525/30) is most sensitive at 450 V, whereas the FL3 detector (BP620/30) is most sensitive at 600 V. Equipped with this information, when you run a new experiment, you should use the voltage with the highest S-T-B ratio for primary detector as your default voltage.


The PMT linearity showed that the FL1 detector gives linear response throughout the tested voltage range, while in the case of FL3 the lower voltage (below 450V) setting should be avoided because the response to the fluorescence intensity is not linear.  


Remember that compensation cannot be correctly calculated if the signal is not in the linear range of the PMT.


Validation of the PMT voltages is performed to confirm the results of the optimization step above. The protocol for this requires particles (CompBeads) that give a single peak when stained with antibodies. For this experiment, three antibodies were chosen that had been previously characterized (titrated) to ensure the optimal signal.


Here, polystyrene microparticles were used, which bind any mouse kappa light chain-bearing immunoglobulin, as well as three fluorochrome labeled antibodies (mouse CD16-PC5, CD45-PC7 and CD36-FITC), which are suitable for three different detectors. The titration curve showed that the CompBeads can be stained in ratio 1:20, 1:20 and 1:5 for CD16-PC5, CD45-PC7 and CD36-FITC, respectively.


As a second step, CompBeads were mixed with a negative control (without any binding capacity) and labeled individually with an appropriate marker. Finally, the primary detector (FL4 for PC5, FL5 for PC7 and FL1 for FITC) was set to gain highest fluorescence response (see below).Figure_#2_How-To_Quality_Assurance


The highest fluorescence for primary detectors was determined as 670 V at FL4 (for CD16-PC5), 500 V at FL5 (for CD45-FL5) and 500 V at FL1 (for CD36-FITC).


The next step was to set the secondary channels to a minimal MFI. For this, a wide range of detector voltages (400-700 V) were tested. The voltage with the lowest MFI found in PMT linear region was chosen (see below).Figure_#3_How-To_Quality_Assurance


As you can see in the above graphs, decreasing MFI values were found on the primary channels (yellow bars), despite being set on a single voltage during the course of all measurements.


Notice how drastically the setting of secondary channels can influence results on primary channels.


When calibrating your cytometer, the final step is to measure rainbow single-peak beads using the same primary/secondary channel settings that were used for your individual fluorochrome.


The repeated measurements (n=20) serves for determination of the target value range for CV, which is the highest value found within +- 1 SD or +- 10 % of mean value.Figure_#4_How-To_Quality_Assurance


In the above figure you can see that the FL5 detector has the lowest sensitivity in comparison to the other detectors, particularly when compared to the FL1 detector. Even if FL5 detector is set to achieve the highest MFI, its response is much lower than the response achieved by the FL1 detector.


QC Program Step #3 – Implement QC Checkpoints


After spending the time and effort to perform the above measurements to optimize your instrument, it's important to implement and monitor how the system is changing over time.


Implementing the proper Quality Assurance (QA) checkpoints is the only way ensure that your flow cytometer is functioning properly over time. It's also the only way to determine what the issue is and how to fix it if there are deviations in these checkpoints.


To implement these QA checkpoints, data from three different bead sets must be recorded and analyzed. The beads include:



  •      Single peak bead

  •      Multiple peak bead

  •      Unstained bead


The parameters to be monitored or “checked” include:



  •      PMT voltage

  •      CV of the single peak bead

  •      MFI of a defined peak (peak 4)

  •      MFI of the unstained beads


Altogether, this allows for three calculations that can be used to assess the overall quality of the instrument over time. These calculations are:



  •      Accuracy (voltage setting as a function of time)

  •      Precision (CV as a function of time)

  •      Sensitivity (S-T-B ratio as a function of time)


Once the above data are collected, they must be plotted for analysis. The most common plot is the Levey-Jennings plot, which shows the daily data, a running average and lines representing tolerance ranges.


These plots are commonly defined relative on the stringency needs of the investigator to either +/- 2 standard deviations from the mean, or +/- 5% of the mean value. Typical plots are shown below.Figure_#5_How-To_Quality_Assurance


If your instrument does not perform this analysis automatically, or if you're interested in having a second QA protocol that is independent from your vendor's protocol, you can download this QA protocol spreadsheet and use it to monitor your data over time.


The above QA protocol spreadsheet has been developed for a FC500 instrument, but the logic can be applied to any number of detectors for any system.


The spreadsheet is organized as follows:



  • Tab 1:  Quality control data – this is the place to put the data that will be the basis of the calculations. Make sure to include the bead type and LOT number.  This is especially critical when there is a change to the bead lot. When coming to the end of a lot of beads, it is good to order the new lot and perform an overlap experiment where the old and new lots of beads are run in parallel and any changes to target values can be identified and noted.

  • Tab 2: Accuracy – here the data is used to calculate the change in voltage over time.

  • Tab 3: Precision – here the coefficient of variation (CV) is calculated using a single bead over time.

  • Tab 4: Sensitivity – here the changes in S-T-B are calculated over time.


By adding your data to the first tab, all the graphs and tables will be updated, allowing for a rapid check and confirmation that your instrument is performing within acceptable ranges. A Levey-Jennings plot for detector is shown with both the +/-2 SD and +/-5% of the mean for each value. This helps you visualize the changes over time, and identify trends before they become problems.


Implementing a system of quality assurance protocols of this nature lends confidence to the data collected, especially for those researchers performing longitudinal studies. Optimal instrument setting, cytometer sensitivity, and monitoring of day-to-day variability in measurement leads to improved assurance for those using this instrument to collect their critical data. QC programs will continue to be prudent measures for cytometrists to take as they align with the current emphasis on quality and reproducibility.


To learn more about how to create a flow cytometry quality assurance protocol for your lab and to get access to all of our advanced materials including 20 training videos, presentations, workbooks, and private group membership, get on the Flow Cytometry Mastery Class wait list.


Flow Cytometry Mastery Class wait list | Expert Cytometry | Flow Cytometry Training