Advertisement

Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

, Volume 408, Issue 15, pp 3969–3979 | Cite as

Mitigation of microtiter plate positioning effects using a block randomization scheme

  • Christopher Roselle
  • Thorsten VerchEmail author
  • Mary Shank-Retzlaff
Research Paper

Abstract

Microtiter plate-based assays are a common tool in biochemical and analytical labs. Despite widespread use, results generated in microtiter plate-based assays are often impacted by positional bias, in which variability in raw signal measurements are not uniform in all regions of the plate. Since small positional effects can disproportionately affect assay results and the reliability of the data, an effective mitigation strategy is critical. Commonly used mitigation strategies include avoiding the use of outer regions of the plate, replicating treatments within and between plates, and randomizing placement of treatments within and between plates. These strategies often introduce complexity while only partially mitigating positional effects and significantly reducing assay throughput. To reduce positional bias more effectively, we developed a novel block-randomized plate layout. Unlike a completely randomized layout, the block randomization scheme coordinates placement of specific curve regions into pre-defined blocks on the plate based on key experimental findings and assumptions about the distribution of assay bias and variability. Using the block-randomized plate layout, we demonstrated a mean bias reduction of relative potency estimates from 6.3 to 1.1 % in a sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) used for vaccine release. In addition, imprecision in relative potency estimates decreased from 10.2 to 4.5 % CV. Using simulations, we also demonstrated the impact of assay bias on measurement confidence and its relation to replication strategies. We outlined the underlying concepts of the block randomization scheme to potentially apply to other microtiter-based assays.

Keywords

ELISA Randomisation Positional effects Relative potency assay Microtiter plate bias 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

No conflicts of interest apply to the scope of the manuscript.

Supplementary material

216_2016_9469_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (976 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 975 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Ekins RP. J Chem Educ. 1999;76:769–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    <Chapter 1032>. USP Pharmacopeial Convention, Inc., Rockville, MD; 2012.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Findlay JW, Smith WC, Lee JW, Nordblom GD, Das I, DeSilva BS, et al. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2000;21:1249–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Statistical analysis of results of biological assays and tests. In: European Pharmacopoeia 6.0. EDQM; 2008.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burt SM, Carter TJ, Kricka LJ. J Immunol Methods. 1979;31:231–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harrison RO, Hammock BD. J Assoc Off Anal Chem. 1988;71:981–7.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kricka LJ, Carter TJ, Burt SM, Kennedy JH, Holder RL, Halliday MI, et al. Clin Chem. 1980;26:741–4.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liang Y, Woodle SA, Shibeko AM, Lee TK, Ovanesov MV. Thromb J. 2013;11:12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Noble JE, Wang L, Cerasoli E, Knight AE, Porter RA, Gray E, et al. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2008;46:1033–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oliver DG, Sanders AH, Hogg RD, Hellman JW. J Immunol Methods. 1981;42:195–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pesce AJ, Michael JG. J Immunol Methods. 1992;150:111–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    US FDA. Guidance for industry: immunogenicity assessment for therapeutic protein products (Draft). Rockville, MD: US FDA; 2013.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Robinson CJ, Sadick M, Deming SN, Estdale S, Bergelson S, and Little L (2014) Bioprocess International.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hentz NG, Knaide TR. J Lab Autom. 2014;19:153–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pandya K, Ray CA, Brunner L, Wang J, Lee JW, DeSilva B. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2010;53:623–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hooton JW, Paetkau V. J Immunol Methods. 1986;94:81–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher Roselle
    • 1
  • Thorsten Verch
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mary Shank-Retzlaff
    • 1
  1. 1.Merck & Co., Inc.West PointUSA

Personalised recommendations