Back

Reproducible detection of antigen-specific T cells and Tregs via standardized and automated activation-induced marker assay workflows

Halvorson, T.; Boucher, G.; Yokosawa, D.; Huang, J. Q.; Garcia, R.; Sanderink, L.; Chen, L.; Liu, L.; Fajardo-Despaigne, J. E.; Halvorson, J.; Brinkman, R.; Vercauteren, S.; Lesage, S.; Bramson, J.; Rioux, J. D.; Ivison, S.; Levings, M. K.

2025-07-15 immunology
10.1101/2025.07.15.664847 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Activation-induced marker (AIM) assays are a promising tool to track antigen-specific T cells, but methodological heterogeneity between research groups hinders their clinical utility. To evaluate AIM assay reproducibility, we conducted a multi-site study of SARS-CoV-2 and cytomegalovirus AIMs. We found inherent variability in AIM assays and optimized approaches to enhance reproducibility, including a standardized workflow to minimize technical variability and a generalizable Box-Cox transformation-based statistical method to optimize calculation of AIM stimulation responses. We further standardized AIM data analysis through development of automated flow cytometric gating software, which had superior reproducibility compared to manual analysis. We also characterized antigen-specific Tregs, finding that gating on a combination of CD134, CD137, FOXP3 and HELIOS optimally detects antigen-specific cells. The combined methodology results in a high degree of reproducibility within and between research groups and provides a comprehensive foundation from which standardized AIM assays can be implemented across diverse scientific and clinical settings. MOTIVATIONReliable detection of antigen-specific T cells is critical to understand immune responses to infection and vaccination, and has translational potential to monitor T cell responses across diverse clinical settings. Activation-induced marker (AIM) assays offer a variety of advantages over methods such as ELISPOT and tetramers, but are limited by methodological heterogeneity between research groups and a lack of standardized protocols. As such, the degree to which AIM assay results are reproducible is unknown. Key variables such as cell source, media, stimulation time, marker selection for CD4+ T cells, CD8+ T cells and regulatory T cells; as well as data analysis parameters such as flow cytometric gating strategies and mathematical correction for background AIM+ frequencies in unstimulated control samples, have not been rigorously studied. To address this, we comprehensively characterized variability in AIM assays, including within and between operators and across multiple research centres, and sought to optimize a standard AIM workflow to enhance reproducibility at both the experimental and analytical levels.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Cytometry Part A
30 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
26.5%
2
Journal of Immunological Methods
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.6%
3
The Journal of Immunology
146 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
7.3%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 16%
6.5%
5
Frontiers in Immunology
586 papers in training set
Top 1%
5.0%
50% of probability mass above
6
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 33%
4.4%
7
ImmunoHorizons
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.8%
8
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 24%
3.7%
9
European Journal of Immunology
57 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
10
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 48%
1.9%
11
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
12
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.9%
13
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
98 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
14
Transplantation
13 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
15
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.7%
16
Cell Reports Medicine
140 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
17
Cytotherapy
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
18
mBio
750 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.7%
19
Immunology
29 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
20
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
120 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
21
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
22
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
23
NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics
214 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
24
Immunology & Cell Biology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
25
ACS Sensors
45 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
26
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
27
Lab on a Chip
88 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
28
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 40%
0.5%
29
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
30
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 31%
0.5%