Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38823575›Full record

ArticleJournal of immunological methods2024

Sources of variability in Luminex bead-based cytokine assays: Evidence from twelve years of multi-site proficiency testing.

Wes Rountree, Heather E Lynch, Thomas N Denny, Gregory D Sempowski, Andrew N Macintyre

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of immunological methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Wes RountreeDuke Human Vaccine Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA; Duke Research and Discovery, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
Heather E LynchDuke Human Vaccine Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
Thomas N DennyDuke Human Vaccine Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA; Duke Research and Discovery, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC 27710, USA; Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
Gregory D SempowskiDuke Human Vaccine Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA; Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
Andrew N MacintyreDuke Human Vaccine Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA; Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA. Electronic address: a.n.macintyre@duke.edu.

Funding

Regional Biocontainment Laboratory (RBL)UC6AI058607 · NIAID · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI WILLIAMS, R SANDERS · 2003 to 2005
$16.3M
Resources and Workforce Development for the Regional Biocontainment LaboratoriesUC7AI180254 · NIAID · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI Herman F Staats · 2023 to 2026
$14.0M
Regional Biocontainment Laboratories Facility and Building System Upgrades SupportG20AI167200 · NIAID · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI STAATS, HERMAN F · 2021 to 2022
$6.6M
NIAID NIH HHS G20 AI167200NIAID NIH HHS HHSN272201000045CNIAID NIH HHS HHSN272201700061CNIAID NIH HHS UC6 AI058607NIAID NIH HHS UC7 AI180254
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bead array assays, such as those sold by Luminex, BD Biosciences, Sartorius, Abcam and other companies, are a well-established platform for multiplexed quantification of cytokines and other biomarkers in both clinical and discovery research environments. In 2011, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)-funded External Quality Assurance Program Oversight Laboratory (EQAPOL) established a proficiency assessment program to monitor participating laboratories performing multiplex cytokine measurements using Luminex bead array technology. During every assessment cycle, each site was sent an assay kit, a protocol, and blinded samples of human sera spiked with recombinant cytokines. Site results were then evaluated for performance relative to peer laboratories. After over a decade of biannual assessments, the cumulative dataset contained over 15,500 bead array observations collected at more than forty laboratories in twelve countries. These data were evaluated alongside post-assessment survey results to empirically test factors that may contribute to variability and accuracy in Luminex bead-based cytokine assays. Bead material, individual technical ability, analyte, analyte concentration, and assay kit vendor were identified as significant contributors to assay performance. In contrast, the bead reader instrument model and the use of automated plate washers were found not to contribute to variability or accuracy, and sample results were found to be highly-consistent between assay kit-manufacturing lots and over time. In addition to these statistical analyses, subjective evaluations identified technical ability, instrument failure, protocol adherence, and data transcription errors as the most common causes of poor performance in the proficiency program. The findings from the EQAPOL multiplex program were then used to develop recommended best practices for bead array monitoring of human cytokines. These included collecting samples to assay as a single batch, centralizing analysis, participating in a quality assurance program, and testing samples using paramagnetic-bead kits from a single manufacturer using a standardized protocol.

Indexed as

CytokinesLaboratory Proficiency TestingBiomarkersHumansImmunoassayQuality ControlReproducibility of ResultsUnited StatesBiomarkersCytokinesLuminexMultiplex cytokine assaysProficiency assessment

Identifiers

PMID38823575
PMCPMC11246216

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.