ArticleCells2015
High Reproducibility of ELISPOT Counts from Nine Different Laboratories.
Article in Cells, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mini-review on the therapeutic vaccines targeting chronic infectious diseases: Evaluation system of therapeutic vaccines targeting HPV and EBV-related cancers.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Review
- Current and Emerging Assays for Measuring Human T-Cell Responses Against Beta-Cell Antigens in Type 1 Diabetes.Biomolecules · 2025Review
- Review
- Article
- Novel insights into TCR-T cell therapy in solid neoplasms: optimizing adoptive immunotherapy.Experimental hematology & oncology · 2024Review
- Antigen-specificity measurements are the key to understanding T cell responses.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Review
- Affinity Tag Coating Enables Reliable Detection of Antigen-Specific B Cells in Immunospot Assays.Cells · 2021Article
- A novel strategy for interpreting the T-SPOT.TB test results read by an ELISPOT plate imager.PloS one · 2019Article
- The Isolation, Differentiation, and Quantification of Human Antibody-secreting B Cells from Blood: ELISpot as a Functional Readout of Humoral Immunity.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2016Article
- How frequently are predicted peptides actually recognized by CD8 cells?Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII · 2016Review
- Induction of Cancer Cell Death by Hyaluronic Acid-Mediated Uptake of Cytochrome C.Journal of nanomedicine & nanotechnology · 2015Article
- Characterization of the HCMV-Specific CD4 T Cell Responses that Are Associated with Protective Immunity.Viruses · 2015Article
- ELISPOTs Produced by CD8 and CD4 Cells Follow Log Normal Size Distribution Permitting Objective Counting.Cells · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The primary goal of immune monitoring with ELISPOT is to measure the number of T cells, specific for any antigen, accurately and reproducibly between different laboratories. In ELISPOT assays, antigen-specific T cells secrete cytokines, forming spots of different sizes on a membrane with variable background intensities. Due to the subjective nature of judging maximal and minimal spot sizes, different investigators come up with different numbers. This study aims to determine whether statistics-based, automated size-gating can harmonize the number of spot counts calculated between different laboratories. We plated PBMC at four different concentrations, 24 replicates each, in an IFN-γ ELISPOT assay with HCMV pp65 antigen. The ELISPOT plate, and an image file of the plate was counted in nine different laboratories using ImmunoSpot® Analyzers by (A) Basic Count™ relying on subjective counting parameters set by the respective investigators and (B) SmartCount™, an automated counting protocol by the ImmunoSpot® Software that uses statistics-based spot size auto-gating with spot intensity auto-thresholding. The average coefficient of variation (CV) for the mean values between independent laboratories was 26.7% when counting with Basic Count™, and 6.7% when counting with SmartCount™. Our data indicates that SmartCount™ allows harmonization of counting ELISPOT results between different laboratories and investigators.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.