eISSN: 1644-4124
ISSN: 1426-3912
Central European Journal of Immunology
Current issue Archive Manuscripts accepted About the journal Special Issues Editorial board Abstracting and indexing Subscription Contact Instructions for authors Publication charge Ethical standards and procedures
Editorial System
Submit your Manuscript
SCImago Journal & Country Rank
1/2024
vol. 49
 
Share:
Share:
Technical notes

Peripheral blood lymphocyte immunophenotyping (TBNK) – a comparison of BD FACSCanto II and BD FACSLyric flow cytometry analysers

Aleksandra Wiśniewska
1
,
Julia Stańczyk
1
,
Urszula Demkow
2
,
Anna Stelmaszczyk-Emmel
2

  1. Student’s Scientific Group at the Department of Laboratory Diagnostics and Clinical Immunology of Developmental Age, Medical University of Warsaw, Poland
  2. Department of Laboratory Diagnostics and Clinical Immunology of Developmental Age, Medical University of Warsaw, Poland
Clin Eur J Immunol 2024; 49 (1): 45-51
Online publish date: 2024/03/05
Article file
- Peripheral blood (2).pdf  [0.91 MB]
Get citation
 
PlumX metrics:
 

Introduction

The assessment of peripheral lymphocyte subpopulations is one of the basic immunological tests performed in medical diagnostic laboratories. Thanks to the assessment of surface antigens, it allows for the division of lymphocytes into individual subpopulations, such as T lymphocytes (including helper and cytotoxic T lymphocytes), B lymphocytes, natural killer (NK) cells and NKT lymphocytes. It is initially performed, of course, with all suspicions of immunodeficiency, but it is also used in many other fields of medicine.

The use of immunophenotyping is crucial for diagnosis of leukaemias and lymphomas. Immunophenotype is one of the factors used in international classification of leukaemias, because it allows one to accurately differentiate cells and distinguish the lineage attribution of the disease [1, 2]. It could be successfully used to monitor the response to leukaemia treatment as well [3]. Other than that, the use of flow cytometry was proven crucial for assessing the prognosis and lineage origin of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) [4].

The assessment of lymphocyte subpopulations, especially Th lymphocytes (CD4+), is included in the recommendations for human immunodeficiency virus diagnosis and evaluation of the treatment’s effectiveness. The progress of the infection is tracked by the depletion of CD4+ lymphocytes [5]. On the other hand, the assessment of NK cells may be used to evaluate non-haematological tumours considering factors such as treatment effectiveness [6]. This subpopulation is also crucial in the response to pathogens; thus the assessment of its function is a helpful diagnostic tool [7, 8]. Additionally, studies indicate the potentially disruptive use for immunophenotyping in the diagnosis of rare inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, especially those that do not fit into standard diagnostic procedures [9].

Another field that widely uses the flow cytometry methods is allergology. The cells mostly responsible for the immediate allergic response are basophils; thus the basophil activation test (BAT), with the use of flow cytometry, is commonly performed during allergy diagnosis [10]. Since lymphocytes are also involved in hypersensitivity reactions, the evaluation of certain subpopulations is included in their differentiation and diagnosis [11].

Due to the fact that it is a common test and therefore performed in many laboratories on different analysers and by different diagnosticians, it is important that the results obtained in different places or with the use of different analysers and software do not differ significantly from each other and the testing technique does not affect the diagnosis and the course of treatment of the patients.

The aim of the study was to compare the results of the assessment of peripheral blood lymphocyte subpopulations performed by different diagnosticians on two flow cytometers – BD FACSCanto II (Becton Dickinson) and BD FACSLyric (Becton Dickinson) – and assess whether the differences could influence the clinical judgement and procedures.

Material and methods

The study included 93 paediatric patients hospitalised in the Children’s Teaching Hospital of the Medical University of Warsaw, in whom physicians ordered an assessment of the subpopulation of peripheral blood lymphocytes as a part of routine hospital diagnostics. The test was performed by a laboratory worker on one analyser and then independently repeated by another researcher on a second analyser. The study also included the evaluation of 9 control samples (multi-check control), which is performed in the laboratory once a week. Altogether 102 samples were evaluated. All of them were analysed in percentages and for 58 of them also absolute counts (using Tru-count tubes) were analysed.

All necessary controls of the analysers’ operation, such as cytometer set-up, tracking beads (CST) and settings update, were performed in accordance with the recommendations of the quality control. CST was performed every 24 hours and every two months we performed a setting update.

The samples were prepared by mixing 50 µl of K3EDTA whole blood with 10 µl of labelled antibody mixture (Multitest 6-color TBNK kit: CD3 FITC / CD16 PE + CD56 PE / CD45 PerCP-Cy5.5 / CD4 PE-Cy7 / CD19 APC / CD8 APC-Cy7, Becton Dickinson) and left for 20 minutes of incubation at room temperature without access to light. Then, 1000 µl of lysing solution (EasyLyse, DAKO) was added and left for another incubation for 10 minutes at 4-8°C. Immediately after the incubation the samples were ready for measurement.

Samples were analysed on the BD FACSCanto II, with FACS Diva 2.0 software and BD FACSLyric, with FACSSuite software, both Becton Dickinson.

An example of the results obtained with both analysers and the methods of gating the population is shown in Figure 1.

Fig. 1

Example of immunophenotyping results and gating method, FACSCanto II, FACS Diva 2.0 software

/f/fulltexts/CEJOI/52525/CEJI-49-52525-g001_min.jpg

The statistical analysis was conducted using Microsoft Office Excel and StatSoft Statistica 13 software. To analyse the agreement between the two assays we used the Bland-Altman plot. We presented the distributions of differences between the two compared methods using a mountain plot. Spearman’s rank correlation examined the strength and direction of monotonic association between two variables. We performed a Passing-Bablok regression test for nonparametric regression analysis.

Results

In this study we evaluated the differences between lymphocyte subpopulation percentage and absolute values obtained from two flow cytometry analysers. We tested the strength of the association between our two variables using Spearman’s rank correlation. The correlation coefficients for T, Tc, Th, B and NK cells showed a strong positive correlation (> 0.96) between analysers’ results for both absolute and percentage values. For NKT cells, the correlation coefficients were lower, 0.856290 for percentage values and 0.807840 for absolute values, suggesting a weaker correlation between these variables (Table 1). All the calculations were performed with a level of significance p < 0.05.

Table 1

Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient values for percentage and absolute values of all examined lymphocyte subpopulations. All of the coefficient values indicate a strong positive correlation between both analysers

Lymphocyte subpopulationSpearman’s rank correlation coefficient
Percentage valuesAbsolute values
CD3+0.9815260.973945
CD3+8+0.9803250.970638
CD3+4+0.9769380.973284
CD19+0.9840910.984955
CD316+56+0.9772540.969884
CD3+16+56+0.8562900.807840

[i] Level of significance p < 0.05.

Bland-Altman plots were used to analyse the agreement between our two assays. They showed that for T, Tc and Th cells, for both percentage and absolute values, as well as B cell absolute values, the results obtained from FACSLyric were slightly higher than those from FACSCanto II. However, for NK and NKT, both percentage and absolute values, as well as B cell percentage values, FACSLyric results were slightly lower than FACSCanto II results. Based on the Bland-Altman plots, we calculated the Bland-Altman coefficient and assessed the level of similarity between measurements (Table 2). We considered the results comparable when the coefficient’s value was lower than 5%.

Table 2

Bland-Altman coefficient values for percentage and absolute values of all examined lymphocyte subpopulations. Six values, which constitute 50% of all the parameters, were lower than 5%, indicating a good comparability between results

Lymphocyte subpopulationBland-Altman coefficient
Percentage valuesAbsolute values
CD3+4.90%5.17%
CD3+8+2.94%*8.62%**
CD3+4+3.92%6.90%
CD19+7.84%6.90%
CD316+56+4.90%3.45%
CD3+16+56+4.90%6.90%

Bold text – value < 5%;

* the lowest value,

** the highest value. Level of significance p < 0.05.

We observed the best comparability in the measurements of Tc lymphocyte (CD3+8+) percentage values. However, the highest Bland-Altman coefficient was noted in the absolute values of the same parameter, indicating the worst comparability between the two analysers (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2

Comparison of Bland-Altman plots for percentage Tc subpopulation value (A) with the lowest Bland-Altman coefficient and absolute Tc subpopulation value (B) with the highest Bland-Altman coefficient

/f/fulltexts/CEJOI/52525/CEJI-49-52525-g002_min.jpg

The Passing-Bablok regression analysis showed that all parameters had a slope value very close to 1, meaning there is good comparability between methods (Table 3). The parameter that had the strongest correlation between methods was Tc cell percentage value assessment, and the weakest correlation was discovered considering NKT cell percentage values (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3

Comparison of Passing-Bablok regression plots between Tc cell percentage value with the strongest correlation between the two methods (A) and NKT cell percentage value with the weakest correlation (B)

/f/fulltexts/CEJOI/52525/CEJI-49-52525-g003_min.jpg
Table 3

Passing-Bablok regression slope values. All of the analysed parameters showed linear dependence and strong correlation with slope values close to 1

Lymphocyte subpopulationPassing-Bablok regression slope values
Percentage valuesAbsolute values
CD3+1.03340.9438
CD3+8+0.9852 *0.9623
CD3+4+0,97750.9402
CD19+1.03360.9728
CD316+56+1.05761.0364
CD3+16+56+1.1337 **1.0586

* The strongest correlation,

** the weakest correlation. Level of significance p < 0.05.

Additionally, we created mountain plots to illustrate the comparability of the results, as shown in Figure 4.

Fig. 4

The comparison of mountain plots of parameters demonstrating the weakest (A, C) and strongest (B, D) alignment of the results within the percentage (A, B) and absolute (C, D) values

/f/fulltexts/CEJOI/52525/CEJI-49-52525-g004_min.jpg

Discussion

The popularity of immunophenotyping by flow cytometry means that many laboratories and research centres use this technique on a daily basis. This leads to the development of technology and techniques, potentially creating difficulties with the comparability of the results. The extensive use of this method raises a question about the differences between used methods and analysers. In this study, we compared two well-known flow cytometers to examine the occurrence of differences and establish whether they may influence the results and the clinical judgements based on them. The results from both analysers in our study were considered comparable, with only one statistical method showing some deviations.

A comparative study, similar to the one that we conducted, was performed by Xu et al. and showed no statistically significant differences in lymphocyte subpopulation assessment considering three different analysers, FACSCanto II, FACSLyric (the two analysers we compared), and additionally FACSCalibur, as well as different research centres [12]. Comparable results were also obtained in another study regarding immunophenotyping by the same analysers included in our study – FACSCanto II, FACSLyric – both in blood samples from relatively healthy subjects and from ones with immune and haematological disorders [13]. Both of the mentioned studies utilised the two flow cytometry analysers used in this study. In order to eliminate potential differences and mistakes, strict standardised procedures have to be followed for the sake of reliable, comparable and accurate results [14].

Murugesan et al. compared two methods of CD34+ hematopoietic stem cell assessment, using one flow cytometry analyser to conduct both analyses, and found no significant differences [15]. Another study by Avecilla et al. also presented a comparison of CD34+ cells in peripheral blood, although they included an automated haematology analyser in comparison to the reference flow cytometry method. The results showed that the haematological analyser can be successfully used as a substitute for laboratories not equipped with a reference method [16].

A comparison of results for CD4+ count made by Kosasih et al. showed comparable results between two flow cytometry analysers, one of which was used in our study as well. However, the authors pointed out the discrepancy for some of the subjects, a possible cause being the differences in gating techniques between analysers [17]. A similar study was performed by Negedu-Momoh et al., who compared the point-of-care (POC) analyser BD FACS-Presto, used to evaluate the CD4 subpopulation, while monitoring HIV infection with a reference flow cytometry method – BD FACSCount. Their study showed good comparability between analysers, as well as no significant differences between the results of tests run by laboratory specialists and non-laboratory operators [18]. On the other hand, Moran et al. found a statistically significant overestimation of CD4+ count using BD FACSPresto in comparison to BD FACSCount, considering an examination of capillary and venous blood [19]. In contrast to that, the study by Kingwara et al. indicated an underestimation of BD FACSPresto, in the case of assessing CD4+ in venous blood [20]. Another two studies performed by Lu et al. [21] and Makadzange et al. [22] investigated a validation process of CD4+ lymphocyte evaluation using the same analyser as the previous research, BD FACSPresto, and its comparison with BD FACSCalibur. The results of both studies indicated the good consistency between these two analysers. It is in agreement with two separate, analogous studies by Elharti et al. [23] and Sagnia et al. [24] that produced the same results. However, the results obtained by Bwana et al. suggest that despite the sufficient comparability, there is still a risk of misdiagnosis resulting in lack of treatment [25]. An accuracy assessment of two different point-of-care testing methods, PIMA and Dymal, in comparison to BD FACSCount, was presented by Malagun et al. and revealed PIMA to be a highly accurate and accessible tool of POC analysis [26].

A comparative study including FACSCanto II and AQUIOS CL (Beckman Coulter) was described by Grossi et al., giving comparable results, although emphasising the need for some crucial adjustments, including the upgrade and enhancement of its function considering more advanced measurement [27]. Verbeek et al. compared both FACSCanto II and FACSLyric with the results of manual analysis of minimal residual disease. The results obtained suggest a similar strong correlation of both analysers’ results with the manual method [28].

The results we obtained are consistent with most of the comparative studies performed in other facilities since we also managed to find a strong correlation and good comparability of results between the two flow cytometry analysers we included in the study. However, some studies, especially those including the point-of-care testing procedures, indicate no influence of the staff training, experience and gating techniques on the accuracy of the results. We established that in our research the deviations shown in one of the comparative statistical methods, although the same sample was evaluated and the recommended controls remained positive, might derive from different gating techniques, as the analyses were carried out by different staff members. In conclusion, this study showed that only one statistical method that we used showed some disturbances; however, it should not influence the clinical outcome. It emphasises the importance of staff training and the normalisation of knowledge and techniques.

Notes

[7] Conflicts of interest The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1 

Alaggio R, Amador C, Anagnostopoulos I, et al. (2022): The 5th edition of the World Health Organization Classification of Haematolymphoid Tumours: Lymphoid Neoplasms. Leukemia 36: 1720-1748.

2 

Boyd SD, Natkunam Y, Allen JR, Warnke RA (2013): Selective immunophenotyping for diagnosis of B-cell neoplasms: immunohistochemistry and flow cytometry strategies and results. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 21: 116-131.

3 

Novoa V, Núñez NA, Carballo OG, Lessa CF (2013): Inmunofenotipos aberrantes en leucemias agudas en una población hospitalaria de Buenos Aires [Aberrant immunophenotypes in acute leukemia in a Buenos Aires’ hospital population]. Medicina (B Aires) 73: 9-16.

4 

Lu D, Liu YR (2013): Research advances in value of flow cytometric immunophenotyping in diagnosis and prognostic evaluation of myelodysplastic syndrome. Zhongguo Shi Yan Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi 21: 785-790.

5 

Formenti SC, Turner RR, de Martini RM, et al. (1989): Immunophenotypic analysis of peripheral blood leukocytes at different stages of HIV infection. An analysis of asymptomatic, ARC, and AIDS populations. Am J Clin Pathol 92: 300-307.

6 

Piroozmand A, Hassan ZM (2010): Evaluation of natural killer cell activity in pre and post treated breast cancer patients. J Cancer Res Ther 6: 478-481.

7 

Newman KC, Riley EM (2007): Whatever turns you on: accessory-cell-dependent activation of NK cells by pathogens. Nat Rev Immunol 7: 279-291.

8 

Horowitz A, Riley EM (2013): Activation of human NK cells by Plasmodium-infected red blood cells. Methods Mol Biol 923: 447-464.

9 

Mueller AA, Sasaki T, Keegan JW, et al. (2023): High-dimensional immunophenotyping reveals immune cell aberrations in patients with undiagnosed inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. J Clin Invest 133: e169619.

10 

Hoffmann HJ, Santos AF, Mayorga C, et al. (2015): The clinical utility of basophil activation testing in diagnosis and monitoring of allergic disease. Allergy 70: 1393-1405.

11 

Hirosako S, Goto E, Tsumori K, et al. (2010): CD8 and CD103 are highly expressed in asthmatic bronchial intraepithelial lymphocytes. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 153: 157-165.

12 

Xu K, Miao L, Chen W, et al. (2021): Establishment of the reference intervals of lymphocyte subsets for healthy Chinese Han adults and its influencing factors. Ann Transl Med 9: 1495.

13 

Omana-Zapata I, Mutschmann C, Schmitz J, et al. (2019): Accurate and reproducible enumeration of T-, B-, and NK lymphocytes using the BD FACSLyric 10-color system: A multisite clinical evaluation. PLoS One 14: e0211207.

14 

Glier H, Novakova M, Te Marvelde J, et al. (2019): Comments on EuroFlow standard operating procedures for instrument setup and compensation for BD FACS Canto II, Navios and BD FACS Lyric instruments. J Immunol Methods 475: 112680.

15 

Murugesan M, Nair CK, Nayanar SK, Pentapati KC (2019): Flow cytometric enumeration of CD34+ hematopoietic stem cells: A comparison between single-versus dual-platform methodology using the International Society of Hematotherapy and Graft Engineering protocol. Asian J Transfus Sci 13: 43-46.

16 

Avecilla ST, Goss C, Marionneaux SM, et al. (2018): Method comparison study of peripheral blood CD34+ count performed on an Abbott CELL-DYN Sapphire hematology analyzer versus flow cytometry reference procedure (modified ISHAGE). Adv Cell Gene Ther 1: e15.

17 

Kosasih AS, Hayuanta HH, Nasuroh N (2023). Comparison between Sysmex CyFlow Counter and BD FACSCanto II + for counting CD4 Cells in Indonesia. Indonesian J Clin Pathol Med Lab 29: 29-32.

18 

Negedu-Momoh OR, Jegede FE, Yakubu A, et al. (2017): Performance evaluation of BD FACSPresto™ point of care CD4 analyzer to enumerate CD4 counts for monitoring HIV infected individuals in Nigeria. PLoS One 12: e0178037.

19 

Moran Z, Sacks JA, Frimpong FK, et al. (2019): Performance of the BD-FACS Presto for CD4 count and hemoglobin measurement in a district hospital and rural laboratory in Ghana. PLoS One 14: e0212684.

20 

Kingwara L, Stephen KB, Ogada C, et al. (2017): Field evaluation of BD FACSPresto for haemoglobin and CD4 measurement. Clin Med Diagn 7: 57-66.

21 

Lu X, Sun H, Li H, et al. (2020): Validation of the BD FACS-Presto system for the measurement of CD4 T-lymphocytes and hemoglobin concentration in HIV-negative and HIV-positive subjects. Sci Rep 10: 19605.

22 

Makadzange AT, Bogezi C, Boyd K, et al. (2016): Evaluation of the FACSPresto, a new point of care device for the enumeration of CD4% and absolute CD4+ T cell counts in HIV infection. PLoS One 11: e0157546.

23 

Elharti E, Abbadi H, Bensghir R, et al. (2020): Assessment of two POC technologies for CD4 count in Morocco. AIDS Res Ther 17: 31.

24 

Sagnia B, Mbakop Ghomsi F, Gutierrez A, et al. (2020): Performance of the BD FACSPresto near to patient analyzer in comparison with representative conventional CD4 instruments in Cameroon. AIDS Res Ther 17: 53.

25 

Bwana P, Vojnov L, Adhiambo M, et al. (2016): The BD FACSPresto point of care CD4 test accurately enumerates CD4+ T cell counts. PLoS One 10: e0145586.

26 

Malagun M, Nano G, Chevallier C, et al. (2014): Multisite evaluation of point of care CD4 testing in Papua New Guinea. PLoS One 9: e112173.

27 

Grossi V, Infantino M, Meacci F, et al. (2018): Comparison of methods and TAT assessment: Volumetric AQUIOS CL and bead-based FACS CANTO II cytometers. Cytometry. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 94: 674-678.

28 

Verbeek MWC, Rodríguez BS, Sedek L, et al. (2023). Minimal residual disease assessment in B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia by semi-automated identification of normal hematopoietic cells: A EuroFlow study. Cytometry B Clin Cytom.

Copyright: © 2024 Polish Society of Experimental and Clinical Immunology This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
 
Quick links
© 2024 Termedia Sp. z o.o.
Developed by Bentus.