Automated EuroFlow approach for standardized in-depth dissection of human circulating B-cells and plasma cells

BackgroundMultiparameter flow cytometry (FC) immunophenotyping is a key tool for detailed identification and characterization of human blood leucocytes, including B-lymphocytes and plasma cells (PC). However, currently used conventional data analysis strategies require extensive expertise, are time consuming, and show limited reproducibility.ObjectiveHere, we designed, constructed and validated an automated database-guided gating and identification (AGI) approach for fast and standardized in-depth dissection of B-lymphocyte and PC populations in human blood.MethodsFor this purpose, 213 FC standard (FCS) datafiles corresponding to umbilical cord and peripheral blood samples from healthy and patient volunteers, stained with the 14-color 18-antibody EuroFlow BIgH-IMM panel, were used.ResultsThe BIgH-IMM antibody panel allowed identification of 117 different B-lymphocyte and PC subsets. Samples from 36 healthy donors were stained and 14 of the datafiles that fulfilled strict inclusion criteria were analysed by an expert flow cytometrist to build the EuroFlow BIgH-IMM database. Data contained in the datafiles was then merged into a reference database that was uploaded in the Infinicyt software (Cytognos, Salamanca, Spain). Subsequently, we compared the results of manual gating (MG) with the performance of two classification algorithms -hierarchical algorithm vs two-step algorithm- for AGI of the cell populations present in 5 randomly selected FCS datafiles. The hierarchical AGI algorithm showed higher correlation values vs conventional MG (r2 of 0.94 vs. 0.88 for the two-step AGI algorithm) and was further validated in a set of 177 FCS datafiles against conventional expert-based MG. For virtually all identifiable cell populations a highly significant correlation was observed between the two approaches (r2>0.81 for 79% of all B-cell populations identified), with a significantly lower median time of analysis per sample (6 vs. 40 min, p=0.001) for the AGI tool vs. MG, respectively and both intra-sample (median CV of 1.7% vs. 10.4% by MG, p