IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0014330.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Equivalence of ELISpot Assays Demonstrated between Major HIV Network Laboratories

Author

Listed:
  • Dilbinder K Gill
  • Yunda Huang
  • Gail L Levine
  • Anna Sambor
  • Donald K Carter
  • Alicia Sato
  • Jakub Kopycinski
  • Peter Hayes
  • Bridget Hahn
  • Josephine Birungi
  • Tony Tarragona-Fiol
  • Hong Wan
  • Mark Randles
  • Andrew Raxworthy Cooper
  • Aloysius Ssemaganda
  • Lorna Clark
  • Pontiano Kaleebu
  • Steven G Self
  • Richard Koup
  • Blake Wood
  • M Juliana McElrath
  • Josephine H Cox
  • John Hural
  • Jill Gilmour

Abstract

Background: The Comprehensive T Cell Vaccine Immune Monitoring Consortium (CTC-VIMC) was created to provide standardized immunogenicity monitoring services for HIV vaccine trials. The ex vivo interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) ELISpot is used extensively as a primary immunogenicity assay to assess T cell-based vaccine candidates in trials for infectious diseases and cancer. Two independent, GCLP-accredited central laboratories of CTC-VIMC routinely use their own standard operating procedures (SOPs) for ELISpot within two major networks of HIV vaccine trials. Studies are imperatively needed to assess the comparability of ELISpot measurements across laboratories to benefit optimal advancement of vaccine candidates. Methods: We describe an equivalence study of the two independently qualified IFN-g ELISpot SOPs. The study design, data collection and subsequent analysis were managed by independent statisticians to avoid subjectivity. The equivalence of both response rates and positivity calls to a given stimulus was assessed based on pre-specified acceptance criteria derived from a separate pilot study. Findings: Detection of positive responses was found to be equivalent between both laboratories. The 95% C.I. on the difference in response rates, for CMV (−1.5%, 1.5%) and CEF (−0.4%, 7.8%) responses, were both contained in the pre-specified equivalence margin of interval [−15%, 15%]. The lower bound of the 95% C.I. on the proportion of concordant positivity calls for CMV (97.2%) and CEF (89.5%) were both greater than the pre-specified margin of 70%. A third CTC-VIMC central laboratory already using one of the two SOPs also showed comparability when tested in a smaller sub-study. Interpretation: The described study procedure provides a prototypical example for the comparison of bioanalytical methods in HIV vaccine and other disease fields. This study also provides valuable and unprecedented information for future vaccine candidate evaluations on the comparison and pooling of ELISpot results generated by the CTC-VIMC central core laboratories.

Suggested Citation

  • Dilbinder K Gill & Yunda Huang & Gail L Levine & Anna Sambor & Donald K Carter & Alicia Sato & Jakub Kopycinski & Peter Hayes & Bridget Hahn & Josephine Birungi & Tony Tarragona-Fiol & Hong Wan & Mark, 2010. "Equivalence of ELISpot Assays Demonstrated between Major HIV Network Laboratories," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(12), pages 1-10, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0014330
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014330
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0014330
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0014330&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0014330?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0014330. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.