Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42814330›Full record

ArticleMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2027

Guidelines for Gating Flow Cytometry Data for Immunological Assays.

Janet Staats, Anagha Divekar, J Philip McCoy, Holden T Maecker

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2027. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Janet Staats, Cedar Grove, NC, 27231, USA. janet.staats@gmail.com.
Anagha DivekarDepartment for Cellular Analysis, Biolegend, San Diego, CA, 92121, USA.
J Philip McCoy, Brunswick, GA, 31523, USA.
Holden T MaeckerInstitute for Immunity, Transplantation, and Infection, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. maecker@stanford.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

"Gating" refers to the selection of successive sub-populations of cells for analysis in flow cytometry. While automated analysis algorithms have seen a greatly increased use, there is still heavy reliance on manual gating, based on expert knowledge of cell characteristics. This can lead to variability in how gates are applied, even between individuals experienced in the field. For clinical assays, guidelines often exist, and software may automate the gating process. But there are no comprehensive guidelines across the various types of immunological assays performed in research settings using flow cytometry. Here, we attempt to provide such guidelines, focused on the most general and pervasive types of gates, why they are important, and what recommendations can be made regarding their use. We do so through the display of example data, collected by academic, government, and industry representatives. These guidelines should be of value to both novice and experienced flow cytometrists analyzing a wide variety of immunological assays.

Indexed as

Flow CytometryImmunophenotypingAlgorithmsHumansSoftwareAnalysisFlow cytometryGatingImmunophenotyping

Identifiers

PMID42814330

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.