Skip to main content

Mastering the Computational Challenges of Elispot Plate Evaluation

Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB,volume 1808)

Abstract

Much has been written about Elispot and how to optimally run the assay for a wide variety of applications. But only a limited number of articles exist addressing the analysis step, the plate evaluation. Comparing that fact with the vast amount of analysis advise available for other single cell immune assay, for example, intracellular cytokine staining, the overall impression may be that Elispot evaluation is just simple enough to not require extensive elaboration and guidance. At first thought this appears reasonable because how difficult can it be counting colored spots on a white background. In addition, automated Elispot readers were already introduced more than 20 years ago (Herr et al., J Immunol Methods 203, 141–152, 1997), easing the strenuous load of manual counting and providing means to decrease the subjectivity in Elispot analysis. Just shortly thereafter however, the first report was published about the subjectivity and operator-dependency of plate evaluation even when using automated reader systems (Janetzki et al., J Immunol Methods 291, 175–183, 2004). Later, the plate evaluation was identified as a main factor causing variability in Elispot results, triggering the inclusion of recommendations on handling of artifacts and the audits of plate reading results in the Initial Elispot Harmonization guidelines (Janetzki et al., Cancer Immunol Immunother 57, 303–315, 2008; Britten et al., Cancer Immunol Immunother 57, 289–302, 2008). In follow-up, a large international study with 75 laboratories was conducted to address the current approaches taken to evaluate Elispot plates and to establish consensus guidelines for plate evaluation (Janetzki et al., Nat Protoc 10, 1098–1115, 2015). This article addresses the special challenges of plate evaluation, gives explanations for unusual observation, and provides overall recommendations on how to work through the labyrinth of available algorithms and reader settings to obtain reliable Elispot data.

Key words

  • Elispot
  • Elispot evaluation
  • Elispot reader
  • Elispot images
  • Elispot software
  • Elispot analysis

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Protocol
USD   49.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-8567-8_2
  • Chapter length: 22 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-1-4939-8567-8
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   149.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Springer Nature is developing a new tool to find and evaluate Protocols. Learn more

References

  1. Czerkinsky CC, Nilsson LA, Nygren H, Ouchterlony O, Tarkowski A (1983) A solid-phase enzyme-linked immunospot (ELISPOT) assay for enumeration of specific antibody-secreting cells. J Immunol Methods 65:109–121

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Weiss AJ (2005) Membranes and membrane plates used in ELISPOT. Methods Mol Biol 302:33–50

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Weiss AJ (2012) Overview of membranes and membrane plates used in research and diagnostic ELISPOT assays. Methods Mol Biol 792:243–256

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Janetzki S, Panageas KS, Ben-Porat L, Boyer J, Britten CM, Clay TM, Kalos M, Maecker HT, Romero P, Yuan J, Kast WM, Hoos A (2008) Results and harmonization guidelines from two large-scale international Elispot proficiency panels conducted by the Cancer Vaccine Consortium (CVC/SVI). Cancer Immunol Immunother 57:303–315

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Britten CM, Gouttefangeas C, Welters MJ, Pawelec G, Koch S, Ottensmeier C, Mander A, Walter S, Paschen A, Muller-Berghaus J, Haas I, Mackensen A, Kollgaard T, thor Straten P, Schmitt M, Giannopoulos K, Maier R, Veelken H, Bertinetti C, Konur A, Huber C, Stevanovic S, Wolfel T, van der Burg SH (2008) The CIMT-monitoring panel: a two-step approach to harmonize the enumeration of antigen-specific CD8+ T lymphocytes by structural and functional assays. Cancer Immunol Immunother 57:289–302

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mallone R, Mannering SI, Brooks-Worrell BM, Durinovic-Bello I, Cilio CM, Wong FS, Schloot NC (2011) Isolation and preservation of peripheral blood mononuclear cells for analysis of islet antigen-reactive T cell responses: position statement of the T-Cell Workshop Committee of the Immunology of Diabetes Society. Clin Exp Immunol 163:33–49

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Janetzki S, Britten CM (2012) The impact of harmonization on ELISPOT assay performance. Methods Mol Biol 792:25–36

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cox JH, Ferrari G, Kalams SA, Lopaczynski W, Oden N, D’Souza M (2005) Results of an ELISPOT proficiency panel conducted in 11 laboratories participating in international human immunodeficiency virus type 1 vaccine trials. AIDS Res Hum Retrovir 21:68–81

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rountree W, Berrong M, Sanchez AM, Denny TN, Ferrari G (2016) Variability of the IFN-gamma ELISpot assay in the context of proficiency testing and bridging studies. J Immunol Methods 433:69–76

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Janetzki S, Price L, Britten CM, van der Burg SH, Caterini J, Currier JR, Ferrari G, Gouttefangeas C, Hayes P, Kaempgen E, Lennerz V, Nihlmark K, Souza V, Hoos A (2010) Performance of serum-supplemented and serum-free media in IFNgamma Elispot Assays for human T cells. Cancer Immunol Immunother 59:609–618

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. van der Burg SH, Kalos M, Gouttefangeas C, Janetzki S, Ottensmeier C, Welters MJ, Romero P, Britten CM, Hoos A (2011) Harmonization of immune biomarker assays for clinical studies. Sci Transl Med 3:108ps144

    Google Scholar 

  12. ICH (1996.) I. C. o. H. Guidance for Industry: Q2B Validation of Analytical Procedures: Methodology

    Google Scholar 

  13. Tuomela M, Stanescu I, Krohn K (2005) Validation overview of bio-analytical methods. Gene Ther 12(Suppl 1):S131–S138

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Janetzki S, Cox JH, Oden N, Ferrari G (2005) Standardization and validation issues of the ELISPOT assay. Methods Mol Biol 302:51–86

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Mander A, Chowdhury F, Low L, Ottensmeier CH (2009) Fit for purpose? A case study: validation of immunological endpoint assays for the detection of cellular and humoral responses to anti-tumour DNA fusion vaccines. Cancer Immunol Immunother 58:789–800

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Smith JG, Liu X, Kaufhold RM, Clair J, Caulfield MJ (2001) Development and validation of a gamma interferon ELISPOT assay for quantitation of cellular immune responses to varicella-zoster virus. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 8:871–879

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Patton K, Aslam S, Lin J, Yu L, Lambert S, Dawes G, Esser MT, Woo J, Janetzki S, Cherukuri A (2014) Enzyme-linked immunospot assay for detection of human respiratory syncytial virus f protein-specific gamma interferon-producing T cells. Clin Vaccine Immunol 21:628–635

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Sahin U, Derhovanessian E, Miller M, Kloke BP, Simon P, Lower M, Bukur V, Tadmor AD, Luxemburger U, Schrors B, Omokoko T, Vormehr M, Albrecht C, Paruzynski A, Kuhn AN, Buck J, Heesch S, Schreeb KH, Muller F, Ortseifer I, Vogler I, Godehardt E, Attig S, Rae R, Breitkreuz A, Tolliver C, Suchan M, Martic G, Hohberger A, Sorn P, Diekmann J, Ciesla J, Waksmann O, Bruck AK, Witt M, Zillgen M, Rothermel A, Kasemann B, Langer D, Bolte S, Diken M, Kreiter S, Nemecek R, Gebhardt C, Grabbe S, Holler C, Utikal J, Huber C, Loquai C, Tureci O (2017) Personalized RNA mutanome vaccines mobilize poly-specific therapeutic immunity against cancer. Nature 547:222–226

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bestard O, Crespo E, Stein M, Lucia M, Roelen DL, de Vaal YJ, Hernandez-Fuentes MP, Chatenoud L, Wood KJ, Claas FH, Cruzado JM, Grinyo JM, Volk HD, Reinke P (2013) Cross-validation of IFN-gamma Elispot assay for measuring alloreactive memory/effector T cell responses in renal transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 13:1880–1890

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tureci O, Vormehr M, Diken M, Kreiter S, Huber C, Sahin U (2016) Targeting the heterogeneity of cancer with individualized neoepitope vaccines. Clin Cancer Res 22:1885–1896

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Meier T, Eulenbruch HP, Wrighton-Smith P, Enders G, Regnath T (2005) Sensitivity of a new commercial enzyme-linked immunospot assay (T SPOT-TB) for diagnosis of tuberculosis in clinical practice. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 24:529–536

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Viklicky O, Hruba P, Tomiuk S, Schmitz S, Gerstmayer B, Sawitzki B, Miqueu P, Mrazova P, Tycova I, Svobodova E, Honsova E, Janssen U, Volk HD, Reinke P (2017) Sequential targeting of CD52 and TNF allows early minimization therapy in kidney transplantation: from a biomarker to targeting in a proof-of-concept trial. PLoS One 12:e0169624

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Janetzki S, Schaed S, Blachere NE, Ben-Porat L, Houghton AN, Panageas KS (2004) Evaluation of Elispot assays: influence of method and operator on variability of results. J Immunol Methods 291:175–183

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Janetzki S, Price L, Schroeder H, Britten CM, Welters MJ, Hoos A (2015) Guidelines for the automated evaluation of Elispot assays. Nat Protoc 10:1098–1115

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Janetzki S (2016) Elispot for Rookies (And Experts Too). In: Kalyuzhny AE (ed) Techniques in life sciences and biomedicine for the non-expert. Springer, Cham, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  26. Schmielau J, Finn OJ (2001) Activated granulocytes and granulocyte-derived hydrogen peroxide are the underlying mechanism of suppression of t-cell function in advanced cancer patients. Cancer Res 61:4756–4760

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. De Rose R, Taylor EL, Law MG, van der Meide PH, Kent SJ (2005) Granulocyte contamination dramatically inhibits spot formation in AIDS virus-specific ELISpot assays: analysis and strategies to ameliorate. J Immunol Methods 297:177–186

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. McKenna KC, Beatty KM, Vicetti Miguel R, Bilonick RA (2009) Delayed processing of blood increases the frequency of activated CD11b+ CD15+ granulocytes which inhibit T cell function. J Immunol Methods 341:68–75

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bull M, Lee D, Stucky J, Chiu YL, Rubin A, Horton H, McElrath MJ (2007) Defining blood processing parameters for optimal detection of cryopreserved antigen-specific responses for HIV vaccine trials. J Immunol Methods 322:57–69

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Kierstead LS, Dubey S, Meyer B, Tobery TW, Mogg R, Fernandez VR, Long R, Guan L, Gaunt C, Collins K, Sykes KJ, Mehrotra DV, Chirmule N, Shiver JW, Casimiro DR (2007) Enhanced rates and magnitude of immune responses detected against an HIV vaccine: effect of using an optimized process for isolating PBMC. AIDS Res Hum Retrovir 23:86–92

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Janetzki S, Rabin R (2015) Enzyme-linked immunospot (elispot) for single-cell analysis. Methods Mol Biol 1346:27–46

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Janetzki S, Rueger M, Dillenbeck T (2014) Stepping up ELISpot: multi-level analysis in fluorospot assays. Cell 3:1102–1115

    CrossRef  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Moodie Z, Price L, Gouttefangeas C, Mander A, Janetzki S, Lower M, Welters MJ, Ottensmeier C, van der Burg SH, Britten CM (2010) Response definition criteria for ELISPOT assays revisited. Cancer Immunol Immunother 59:1489–1501

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Moodie Z, Price L, Janetzki S, Britten CM (2012) Response determination criteria for ELISPOT: toward a standard that can be applied across laboratories. Methods Mol Biol 792:185–196

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sylvia Janetzki .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature

About this protocol

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this protocol

Janetzki, S. (2018). Mastering the Computational Challenges of Elispot Plate Evaluation. In: Kalyuzhny, A. (eds) Handbook of ELISPOT . Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 1808. Humana Press, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-8567-8_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-8567-8_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-8566-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-8567-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Protocols